In
<1120824561(_dot_)19467(_dot_)473(_dot_)camel(_at_)hades(_dot_)cambridge(_dot_)redhat(_dot_)com>
David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> writes:
But nobody volunteered any reasons why, in the _absence_ of SPF (which
we know has technical problems with forwarding) there is any other
reason to consider it to be a bad thing. I'd heard nobody say that
forwarding was wrong, or 'forgery', before SPF was invented. What,
_other_ than the technical problems of SPF, has changed?
I think, if you dig around in the archive, you will quickly find
people who have said that forwarding w/o rewriting is wrong and
forgery. I have seen many people saying something along the lines of
"the problem with stopping forgery is that you have to stop *all*
forgery".
The fact that domain owners, before things like SPF were created,
didn't have a voice about how they think their domain name should be
used, doesn't mean that they all liked that forwarders could send
email claiming to be from them and didn't consider it to be forgery.
-wayne