Frank Ellermann wrote on Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:36 AM -0600:
Seth Goodman wrote:
My counter is still one pseudo-551 since 2004-05 (zero in 2006).
Your counter for forwarded message rejections, as well as everyone
else's, is low because recipients are not rejecting on SPF fail.
If they silently drop FAIL I might not note it, but there was no
case where I expected an answer, didn't get it, checked why, and the
receiver said "oops" claiming that SPF + forwarding was the issue.
That is not the point. There are very few rejections due to forwarding
because there are very few rejections due to SPF. There won't be many
rejections of any kind due to SPF until people feel confident it won't
break alias forwarding. Unless somebody changes something, you're
quite safe as you are.
It would be a serious mistake to assume that alias forwarding will
go away any time soon
I don't care _when_ it's substituted by one of the many ways to get
a similar effect without the "keep MAIL FROM as is" stunt. Stating
that it _must_ go away sooner or later is the point of SPF FAIL.
Very inaccurate. You may personally decide to label current email
practice as a "stunt" if you wish, but I suggest you refrain from
stating that this has anything to do with the "point of SPF fail".
It does not, and it never has. Many people who are interested in SPF
read this forum, and I'd hate to see any of them take away that
misinformation.
--
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