spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Election issue: forwarding problem

2007-01-26 19:01:37
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Deutschmann wrote:
Well, about time I voted...

The reason I bothered registering is that I see one area where the SPF
effort could be guided better.  This is the forwarding problem.

[...]

Any reaction from the candidates to this position?

I think SRS is a hack that isn't likely to get deployed widely any time 
soon -- probably not even in the long run.  Instead I think that the net 
should conceptually be divided into exactly two halves at all times: the 
sender's network and the receiver's network.  There is no room for
unaccountable middlemen "just passing mail along".  If I as a receiver set 
up a forwarding using a 3rd party's forwarding service, I will have to 
trust them and consider them part of my own e-mail network.  That's 
essentially what the lame "TENBOX" catchphrase is about.  (Can we find 
another term?  In any case I think we do need one.)

One other idea that has been buried in RFCs 821 and 2821 largely unnoticed 
is the HTTP-redirection-like "551 User not local; please try 
<joe(_at_)example(_dot_) 
org>"-style "forwarding" (Frank mentioned it before).  I think this would 
be _the_ solution if only more MTAs supported it.  If we want to work on 
getting rid of the forwarding problem in _MTAs_ (as opposed to writing 
glue code for receiver-side forwarder white-listing), that's where we 
should channel our efforts.

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

iD8DBQFFurIswL7PKlBZWjsRAsyAAKCi8KQAxTIJBUZWCaS7T6UDBkObWwCdHeWa
o4j8ETzmsyFOqQ91wEMof2U=
=QioH
-----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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>