On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Frank Ellermann wrote:
it also avoids the SPF problem with "traditional forwarding".
There are *no* SPF problems caused by "traditional forwarding".
True, correctly checking SPF requires taking any such forwarders
into account since they become mail gateways for the recipient domain - and
this is more difficult for a large ESP, since it involves getting accurate info
on the forwarders from millions of users who have likely forgotten that they
ever requested forwarding. This is why large ESPs like gmail tend to punt and
not reject outright on FAIL.
However, I and countless other small domain owners reject on FAIL
with zero false positives. Why? Because we don't use traditional
forwarders. Or, as in my case, we do have a few, but simply
list them in our SPF config. There is simply no problem other than
the usual problem of getting non technical users to configure stuff
correctly - and that is not a specifically SPF problem.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=80083361-5b0165
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com