spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: The forwarder's perspective

2007-01-14 17:25:19
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Deutschmann wrote:
I've thought of a better may to state my case for a forwarder-white-
listing extension, so here's a "reboot" of the "Better way to..." thread:
[...]
So an extension to make forwarder whitelisting as easy as sender
whitelisting would be a good idea.  While it must be deployed at both
recipient and forwarder, both sides have an incentive to take it up.
Unlike SRS, where while the recipient doesn't need to do anything, the
forwarder who does has a negative incentive.

I think you summarized the situation pretty well! :-)

However, I don't think an SMTP extension is what needs to be done.  In 
itself, an SMTP extension wouldn't solve the problem.  Rather, I think 
this is mainly a lack-of-glue-code-in-current-setups problem.

Search spf-discuss for "TENBOX" (just a funny acronym I made up to give the 
problem a catchy name):

  http://search.gmane.org/?query=TENBOX&group=gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss

Unfortunately, I didn't get a lot of comments on my analysis back then...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFqsmTwL7PKlBZWjsRAtxyAKDzXGcB9RHgfnMTMetY3sSsDmwTIwCfc/xD
T2DZAi0FznSEWAI23oWrv0c=
=CCBm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
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