On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Dick St.Peters wrote:
Forwarding is NOT "technically wrong." How to do it is described in
RFC 1123, which says that except for the envelope RCPT TO address, the
envelope is unchanged.
If you want it to *become* technically wrong, start an RFC process to
make it so. Until you succeed in getting that RFC accepted, please
stop misrepresenting what is valid now.
Amen. And sender rewriting is not required to properly check SPF.
All this is required is knowing who your forwarders are (admittedly, not
an easy task for some recipients) and listing them for your SPF
checker. Just as SPF senders need to know who their senders are
and list them. If you can't find all your forwarders, then don't
reject on SPF (and just use the results for statistical filtering).
It's so simple. But so many SPF checkers get it wrong. Instead
of arguing about whether SPF "breaks" forwarding (by requiring
a list of forwarders to check SPF) - why don't we provide clear
instructions for various SPF checkers on how to list forwarders?
People implementing SPF for the first time need to at the very
least be aware of the requirement. All the rhetoric about
"breaking" doesn't convey the fact that they NEED TO DO SOMETHING
about forwarders - list them. Or don't reject. Their choice.
About the most holy RFC 1123. With that regime, any bozo anywhere in the world
can start forwarding stuff to me without my asking them too. And they
do. It is a *feature* of SPF that those bozos get rejected.
If I really did ask them to forward stuff to me, I'll list them.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.