"Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> writes:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Graham Murray wrote:
I would disagree. I suspect that it is common for 'role' addresses to
be aliased to a personal address, often with the same person receiving
more than one 'role' address. If user(_at_)example(_dot_)com receives mail
for
postmaster(_at_)example(_dot_)com and abuse(_at_)example(_dot_)com, they may
well want
replies to mails sent to those addresses to show the appropriate
'role' account rather than user(_at_)example(_dot_)com(_dot_)
Yes, but we are not talking about internal forwarding. The above
scenario causes no problems with SPF.
Neither am I talking about internal forwarding. I am talking about the
replies to the internally forwarded or aliased email. If my mailbox is
user(_at_)example(_dot_)com it also receives mail addressed to
postmaster(_at_)example(_dot_)com, then when I reply to mail addressed to
postmaster I may well want to change the RFC(2)821 envelope return
path and header "From" to "postmaster(_at_)example(_dot_)com" rather than the
default "user(_at_)example(_dot_)com". This, I think is one situation where
RFC2831 section 7.1 is legitimate.