On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:42:26PM -0800, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
Normal case:
Sender --> Smarthost ==> MX --> Recipient
Forwarding case:
Sender --> Smarthost ==> Forwarder ==> MX --> Recipient
Where "==>" denotes a border-crossing hop.
Shouldn't the forwarder case more appropriately read:
Sender --> Smarthost ==> MX --> Forwarder ==> MX --> Recipient
(or, if "Forwarder" is a black box:
Sender --> Smarthost ==> MX(Recipient) --> Forwarder")
The sender, relevant to SPF, doesn't know nor care what happens after
the first "==> MX". It, or some entity like "Smarthost" acting on
behalf of the sender, was told to deliver mail for "example.com" at
mx.example.com, it did so, and then responsibility for the message is
transfered to "example.com".
Whatever happens to this message is now under control of the recipient,
and problems occuring from that moment on are the recipient's problems.
Why would there be a difference between:
"... MX --> Forwarder ==> MX --> Recipient"
and
"... MX --> Internal_relay1 --> Internal_relay2 --> Recipient"
?
-------------------------------------------
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=86296994-a2f184
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com