David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 11:56 -0400, Terry Fielder wrote:
No. Again you miss the point. The forwarding sites have nothing to do
with _either_ the sending or receiving domains.
Wrong. The forwarding site has EVERYTHING to do with the ORIGINAL
receiving domain. And that's where the relationship exists, because the
original receiving domain has a relationship with the final receiving
domain. User of the original receiving domain is using the forwarder to
define the relationship to his final receiving domain.
Let's avoid using duplicate terms. Obviously the forwarding site _is_
the 'original receiving domain'. So what you're saying would be...
No, the forwarding site is an intermediate MTA of the original receiving
domain (and probably many other receiving domains). If the forwarding
site is literally the same as the original receiving domain, I would
have said so, but I didn't because it isn't.
The forwarding site has EVERYTHING to do with the forwarding site.
And that's where the relationship exists, because the
forwarding site has a relationship with the final receiving
domain. User of the forwarding site is using the forwarder to
define the relationship to his final receiving domain.
No, NO NO!
The forwarding site does *not* have a relationship with the final
receiving domain. The forwarding sites configuration DEFINES the
relationship between the original receiving domain and the final
receiving domain. And the original receiving domain knows s/he is using
the forwarder, and hence needs to ensure the forwarder is well behaved
or the sender domain's it wants to accept emails from SPF record
compensates for a badly behaved forwarder. If the final receiving
domain doesn't (or can't) ensure that, then don't reject on SPF fail.
So the relationship to which you point is that one of the millions of
users of the forwarding site is also one of the millions of users of the
receiving domain.
Your twisting my accurate statement into an inaccurate statement does
not make my statement inaccurate.
And by that logic you are my cousin, are you not?
Thank god not.
I was looking for a more useful and practical relationship.
I was looking for someone who read what I said rather then rewording
what I said into something else.
Nor does the admin at [the receiving site] need to know. The
[forwarding site], and needs to ensure the forwarder forwards without forgery
I see no RFC definition of this 'forgery' of which you speak, and of
which Alex raves so hotly. It's purely an invention, to work around the
brokenness of SPF.
If the final destination domain checks SPF and wants to reject on Fail,
the final domain should ensure any forwarders behave w/o forgery (that's
ultimately the best answer)
What if I were suddenly to claim that my name may not be used in the
From: header of mail coming from anywhere but my own servers,
*perfect*. Now I think you understand the point of SPF.
and I
cried that the mailing list's use of my name was 'forgery'?
Um, most mailing lists *do* change the "From" when they broadcast the
posts. Moderated lists nearly have to, and most unmoderated lists do
anyway. And the forwarding forgery issue is just *one* of the reasons why.
Surely you would all just laugh at me?
Well, you do cause me to laugh, but not because of that statement.
Why then do you expect your own
cries of 'forgery' to be taken seriously by all forwarding hosts in the
world?
When they discover people stop using their services because people need
to reduce their spam more then they need to keep using forgery style
forwarders.
This 'forgery' of which you speak is normal behaviour and has been for
years. By expecting it to change you are tilting at windmills. Using
emotive words to describe standard behaviour doesn't change that fact.
Open relays were normal behaviour for years. That doesn't make it good
or acceptable. And its all gone now, despite the whiners a couple years
ago that said they had to have them.
I expect the forgery forwarders will go the same way.
--
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085