On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Seth Goodman wrote:
As convenient as it is, I really can't buy the argument that forwarders are
really gateways. Unfortunately, various standards and proposed standards
say what gateways and forwarders are, and they are clearly different. If
I wasn't trying to argue that. My point is that SPF configuration
for an alias is no different than SPF configuration for a secondary
MX. If you leave any of your MX MTAs out of your SPF whitelist and
reject on FAIL, you are going to reject legitimate mail.
If you leave any of your aliases out of your SPF whitelist and
reject on FAIL, you are going to reject legitimate mail.
As far as actual problems on spf-help, people leaving their
secondary MXs out of the SPF whitelist is *very* common. I have
yet to see an actual example of someone complaining about alias
forwarding - making the problem largely theoretical for me.
I suspect this is because non-technical mail users usually notice the
new email address in the DSN (the only part they understand),
and simply resend their message to that and update their address book.
When someone leaves their MX out of their SPF whitelist, the only way
to send them mail is to forge a non-SPF domain :-). (Which is what I
have advised senders in that situation to do).
--
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