Frank Ellermann wrote on Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:11 PM -0600:
Seth Goodman wrote:
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.
This is obviously untrue - the very first SPF Web page prominently
talked about "SPF breaking forwarding". It's the intended effect
of SPF FAIL policies to be rejected at the border of the receiver.
Breaking alias forwarding was an unwanted side-effect, not an intended
result. SRS was concocted, against strong resistance to any kind of
return-path rewriting, in order to mitigate this otherwise undesirable
side-effect. I repeat: breaking of alias forwarding was an unavoidable
and unwanted side effect, not an intended consequence.
Bouncing FAIL later can't work (to whom ?), and silently dropping
SPF FAIL later also won't work if it could be a legacy forwarding.
Yes, it's a very hard problem. Declaring the millions of existing
forwarding arrangements broken and wishing that the whole world will
wake up and realize that 821 is flawed is not a productive approach.
Many people who are interested in SPF read this forum, and I'd
hate to see any of them take away that misinformation.
Yes, that's why I correct your desinformation - after three years
it's unlikely that you missed the point of SPF FAIL wrt MAIL FROM.
Correct, I do understand what SPF fail means. Breaking alias forwarding
is a direct result of validating the return path by sending IP, but this
design was _never_ intended to be a statement that alias forwarding is
broken and that it must go away. You might as well say that SMTP is
broken and must go away. It doesn't matter if you can make a good
technical argument, it will never happen.
--
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