Julian Mehnle wrote on Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:27 AM -0600:
Seth Goodman wrote:
The case that can defeat this scheme is a forwarder munging a
message body but keeping the original return-path. The same
behavior would also defeat DKIM for exactly the same reason, so I
think most people would accept this.
This is what I have been talking about. Saying that DKIM breaks in
the same cases doesn't make it any better. DKIM -- just like SPF --
isn't the authority on what breakage people will accept.
I'm suggesting that because people don't seem to mind this problem in
DKIM, they wouldn't mind it for SES as an adjunct to SPF. More
importantly, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Even if some
forwards experienced this problem, using SES would still improve the
deliverability of forwards for domains that publish SPF. It just
wouldn't reach 100%.
This is not to say that message munging by forwarders is an acceptable
practice. But just like alias-style forwarding, it isn't going to go
away anytime soon and we thus need to deal with it (i.e. try to get it
phased out).
I don't agree that this particular breakage is as common as you suggest.
Do you know of any major providers who munge the message body on alias
forwards?
--
Seth Goodman
-------
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