On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 03:42:37PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
If you send mail to such systems, it should be no
surprise that you may reject any replies. In general, sending mail to
systems that can't send DSN's is not a good idea.
Now we're getting somewhere.
I know that, for whatever reason, I will not receive DSNs from "P".
This means I will never send mail to "P".
Now, I send mail to "F". How should I know it will forward it to "P" ?
I don't, and I don't care. What I do care about it that "F" uses
_my_ name as return address. I carefully avoid a problem but that
user at "F" decides he knows better and uses my name to do whatever
he likes.
Again: I don't care if he forwards the message to "P". Just don't
do it in my name.
The point is: forwarder-old-style is bad, even without SPF.
Sorry, this list is to discuss SPF, not to criticize RFC821 and 2821.
Wasn't it you that wrote
" Let's compare this as it is today, without SPF. That's how 99.9% of
the recipients operate, so it is what we have to compare any argument
of loss of function.
"
? If so then I'm sorry.
Alex
-------
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