On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Seth Goodman wrote:
There _is_ a forwarding problem inherent in the SPF protocol architecture.
It will not kill SPF, but it has slowed down adoption significantly. It has
resulted in a large success in people publishing records and an equally
large failure in people utilizing SPF results on incoming, if they even
check for them. Unless you implement something like what Stuart has done
(create a user whitelisting system for forwarders plus provide local SPF
records for domains that don't publish but you want to whitelist), the best
you can do is to trust an SPF pass. Since spammers are among the early
adopters, this does not help all that much. The real value comes when you
can reject on SPF fail, but we're not there yet, largely due to the
forwarding problem.
There is another solution for recipients who have lost track of
their forwarders: http://www.trusted-forwarder.org/
As long as the forwarders they really care about are on that list,
it solves their problem without having to actually track down
all their aliases.
--
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.
-------
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