spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF+SRS vs. BATV

2005-07-05 11:56:02
In 
<1120589537(_dot_)8058(_dot_)139(_dot_)camel(_at_)baythorne(_dot_)infradead(_dot_)org>
 David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> writes:

On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 20:32 +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:

Absolutely true.  Note, however, that they don't have to refrain from 
rejecting on SPF "Fail" for _all_ the mail they receive, but just for
that received from their configured forwarders.

Er, the whole point was they they can't _tell_ which mail is from
forwarders, 'configured' or otherwise. Thus the only safe answer is not
to reject for SPF failure at all.

Uh, I thought your claim was that, in your opinion, it wasn't
"feasible" for receivers to tell, not that they "can't" tell.

Anyway, I disagree that it isn't feasible, but that's just rehashing
an old argument.

-wayne


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>