Michael Deutschmann wrote on Sunday, April 08, 2007 7:37 PM -0500:
SRS is nicer to the recipient than TENBOX/E. But SRS is already 100%
deployed at the recipient end (since recipients don't need to do
anything), and yet is a failure because of poor uptake by forwarders.
We need to trade off some of SRS's recipient convenience for some
forwarder convenience, so that we can actually have deployment at
both ends.
Suggesting that recipient systems must do more than SPF already asks is
not realistic. The adoption experience of the past few years has shown
that they will not. The primary motivation to suggest additional
recipient system work is that it is friendlier to forwarders, a group
that recipient systems do not care about directly, or worse.
Tenbox appears to add some automation to the forwarder whitelisting
process, but it doesn't sound significantly easier for the end user than
forcing them to enumerate their forwarding arrangements. The fact that
it is more specific, i.e. associates an incoming address with a redirect
address (does it?), is not a big enough carrot, IMHO, to make recipient
systems take on the additional problems. It might help if you
illustrate the use case of a non-technical user who knows nothing about
email transport.
Users will complain if their forwards stop working and the forwarder
tells them only their ISP can fix it.
And their ISP will contradict this. Users can't arbitrate technical
matters, they believe who they believe. Most often, it will not be a
forwarder, with whom they no longer have a direct relationship.
--
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