On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 05:15:42PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
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.
Yes, I did write that, and I believe you are using it out of context. My
intention was to use how email operates today, without SPF, as the baseline
for comparison to any email authentication scheme.
Then we agree (on the baseline part, not on the out-of-context part).
I say: SPF _improves_ this situation.
If the forwarder cannot deliver the message to the final recipient because
I used "-all", then I get what I want: if you forward my message, don't use
my name in mail from.
We can agree to disagree on the forwarding part. My opinion is that it is
bad because it introduces problems unknown to the original sender, and
"returning" the message to the original sender does more harm than it
solves. SPF with -all does stop it and therefore I'm happy.
If someone wants to forward messages, by all means do so but do take
responsibility for any errors when _you_ (not you Seth, the forwarder)
run into problems. You cause a problem, you solve it, so you need to
be informed (by receiving the stuck message).
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