spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Better approach to the forwarder problem

2007-01-11 18:35:13
Michael Deutschmann wrote:

I'm of the opinion that it is better to "eat your spam" than silently
discard mail or emit backscatter.   Thus, forwarded mail should *always go
through*, no matter how spammy it may seem.   (Assuming the forwarding
arrangement was consensual, of course.)

+1

Either reject at the border MX, or "eat your spam".  You could reject the
mail later (resulting in a bounce) if it got an SPF PASS at the border MX,
because then you're sure that it won't hit innocent bystanders.  But that's
not yet (and maybe never) the most likely case.

You could also decide to drop the mail later if you find that it should
have been rejected at the border with an SPF FAIL.  But it's probably
faster to reject SPF FAIL a.s.a.p. instead of inventing odd "delayed SPF
evaluation" schemes.  Besides these tricks would only work for SPF PASS
and SPF FAIL, for anything else (SPF NEUTRAL + NONE) accepting mail is a
one-way-street, bouncing it later will hit innocent bystanders.

BTW, there's a new BATV draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-smtp-batv-00.txt

Frank


-------
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/?list_id=735