In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0607200638280(_dot_)27249(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
The problem is that it is not necessarily good and wanted for forwarder
to tell sender what address the email is being forwarded to - there are
various privacy issues involved. Not to mention that just answering with
address like that will be used by spammers.
Sure, there certainly are privacy issues, but let's be serious. If
most forwarders really cared about privacy, they would have
implemented something like SRS a *long* time ago. Without using SRS,
it is very easy to leak as much, if not a great deal more, information
as the 551 redirect does.
That case can be compared to what you change your phone
number and for period of time phone company will answer with automated
message on old number saying what new phone number now is.
Yes. For all those "temporary" forwarding situations, 551 is much
better. For any permanent forwarding situations, the forwarders
*MUST* use something like SRS to be any better than the 551 redirect.
-wayne
-------
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