On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 07:07:07PM -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
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).
That's an interesting idea. I agree with the intent, since it informs the
party who set up the forward that there's a problem. That's appropriate
since they created the problem and are in a position to do something about
it.
Very good. So far, we don't seem to have a big issue.
However, there's a practical issue.
There's a challenge, yes. As you may understand, that's a challenge for
them, not for me. And yes, there are ways to combat this challenge. The
first thing to do (by the forwarder) is to acknowledge the fact that they
have a problem to solve.
(So far this is with or without SPF. SPF only somewhat enforces it.)
I imagine this would be implemented by the forwarder changing the
return-path to the original RCPT TO address.
Not necessarily. It could also be "postmaster(_at_)${F}". It could be
another account under the users control. I don't care. They have
a problem to solve, not me. It makes sense to handle it like a
one-member mailing list, and process it like rfc2821 section 3.10.2
but that's upto them. Just don't bother me.
I understand that there's a risk of loosing mail here. The same
would apply if I setup a .forward file of "|/bin/cat > /dev/null".
It is not the original sender's problem. Whatever the receiver
does with the message he received is his problem.
I think it is time to close this thread down, if not we're going to
rehash old arguments.
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