On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Should the SPF RFC say anything about not bouncing email that
gets SPF fail? Those bounces are likely due to software that
tries to check SPF using "Received" headers at a machine that
is not actually the gateway.
Of course not, the "551-emulation" of SPF FAIL is perfect as it
is: Receiver A tries 5.3.6a-forward to B, B rejects SPF FAIL,
A sends bounce message to the original MAIL FROM "sender", the
bounce message indicates the "551 user not local" address at B.
The sender is then free to send the message again directly to B
bypassing the forwarder A, works like a charme. Well, at least
for the one time I got a pseudo-551 since May 2004 for my FAIL.
In that case, B rejected, not bounced, the SPF FAIL. Of course
A should bounce any rejections from the next hop. I'm talking
about when B in the above scenario accepts the mail, then sends
a DSN to sender after discovering belatedly (via late SPF check)
that it should have rejected it after all.
--
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://www.openspf.org/
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