On Saturday 03 February 2007 21:34, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
Backscatter is a big problem for forwarders. TENBOX will make it go
away. SRS makes it worse, because by relaying the DSNs, the forwarder
takes the reputation hit for the recipient's backscatter.
Not for domains that publish SPF -all, if they checked SPF before
accepting the mail on the way in.
But most domains don't publish SPF -all, or SPF at all, today. Faced
with an ambivalent SPF result (NONE, NEUTRAL, or SOFTFAIL), a forwarder
can neither reasonably refuse such e-mail outright, nor assume that
bouncing the message will be safe.
That's true, but they can also be assured that if they forward it it won't get
rejected for SPF downstream, so SPF makes this neither better nor worse.
I suppose one could do SRS if the message is SPF PASS, reject it if it's SPF
FAIL and do traditional forwarding if it's and other SPF result. This would
avoid the making it worse part and actually reduce backscatter to some
degree.
Scott K
-------
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