Michael Deutschmann wrote on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:02 PM -0500:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Seth Goodman wrote:
Michael Deutschmann wrote on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:45 PM -0500:
While it's true that ultimate responsibility rests with the system
that generates a delayed bounce to a forged address, it's also true
that there is no method today, short of tricks such as SES, to
determine the validity of return-paths on forwarded mail.
So to be safe, the recipient system must *always* place forwarded
mail in the end-users mailbox, no matter how confident the automated
systems are that it is spam, since there's no other direction it may
safely go.
Thus it is completely rational to blame the forwarder who handed you
the forgery. Every system is responsible for what they emit.
The forwarder robotically follows the end-user's orders, so the
end-user is responsible for the results of those orders. So if the
forwarder accepts spam, it is the end-user's responsibility to "eat
it".
While technically correct, the end user blames the system they forward
to for all spam in their inbox, regardless of the source. Since they
can vote by changing providers, recipient systems generally ignore the
technical arguments in favor of staying in business.
--
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