-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Edmig wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 4:39 AM, Julian Mehnle <julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> wrote:
Besides my dislike for mandating receiver policy, I think mandating
receivers to send DSNs (delivery status notifications AKA bounces,
for those who don't know the acronym) is a particularly touchy issue.
I agree with Julian on this. Many receivers get so few legitimate DSNs
that they would rather deal with each as the situation requires. While
it may make sense to automatically send a DSN in the example above,
where the postmaster at example.com should be interested in what
happens at IP 1.2.3.4,, in the more common case of ~all, the DSN will
go to a forged address.
That's not exactly what I meant. I was referring to the issue of sending
massive amounts of DSNs to domain owners. Sure, that might convince
domain owners to switch to -all to get rid of all the useless DSNs </sarcasm>,
but they might just as well decide to abandon SPF altogether then.
What might make sense here is a more subtle "upgrade" in the meaning of
~all, one that is "backward compatible" with existing implementations.
It could mean the same as -all for messages sent direct to the final
destination, and continue to mean ~all for forwarded messages.
If there was a way to discern forwarded messages from non-forwarded ones,
then no one would be complaining about a "forwarding problem" in the first
place. However there's just no way to do this reliably.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHf5GbwL7PKlBZWjsRAq4RAJ9Empx7LJ6XdoLQGjHAqpTs6bVvdQCgwGDj
RWXq0OuLsWNu8xM8QL3JNKM=
=2Qnj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
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=82149493-7bff39
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com