On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, wayne wrote:
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
I disagree. The SMTP transmission is multi-stage and original sender is
correct source of the transmission. Inability to use this information to
authenticate sender based on its ip address of current stage SMTP client
does not necessarily means that data is wrong and should be replaced.
P.S. When telephone call is made and is forwarded somewhere else, what
number do you think is going to show up and who are you talking to?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net