Julian Mehnle wrote:
Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
And I wasn't speaking of the recievers forwarding set up -- that is
irrelevant. I'm talking about the one or more forwarders in the middle
that don't deploy SPF because of its issues. Those hops are forwarding
mail and understand their forwarding configuration just fine -- though
it is visible to neither the sending admin or the final receiving
admin.
Really, I have never heard of a forwarding that has neither been set
up by
the sender nor by the recipient. SMTP isn't like IP where packets travel
through faceless 3rd-party hops on their way from the sender to the
recipient.
It's set up by the sending user, not the sending MTA admin. And even if
they sending MTA admin fully grokked all the forwarding configs his
users have set up (which is a reasonable expectation) it doesn't really
help much -- as they are only responsible for pulishing SPF records.
And incorporating 10k+ forwarding rules into your SPF records looks
like: ".... -all" -> ".... ?all"
The "someone set up a forwarding for her" case you mentioned is extremely
obscure and is really just a case of recipient-controlled forwarding
since it was done with at least _implicit_ approval of the recipient.
Clearly there is implicit approval (otherwise it would be abusive).
However, the receiving user is not savvy enough to understand
forwarding, he/she just knows she gets mail when someone sends it to
board(_at_)my-hoa(_dot_)foo(_dot_) So, if the user (and every other user) were
to try to
communicate this stuff with her receiving MTA admin, it would be costly.
--
// Theo Schlossnagle
// Principal Engineer -- http://www.omniti.com/~jesus/
// Ecelerity: Run with it. -- http://www.omniti.com/
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com