On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:14:46PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The number of admins (ADMDs) is different. In the 2nd
scenario it's easy to say "you broke it, you fix it" ;-)
... because I disagree. This is also possible in the
first scenario. In both cases it is the recipient (or
his employer, or his ISP, or...) who screwed up.
The recipient is an ordinary user, and ordinary users are
IMO entitled to be clueless
Sure. But that still doesn't make it my problem.
When a receiver uses SPF (knowingly or not) at the wrong place, then
only the receiver can fix it/have it fixed.
I know little about television hardware. That's why I won't build my
own set, nor do I attempt to repair it when it's broken. Should I
electrocute myself when I would open the hood, then that's not the
fault of the manufacturor, the electricity company, the broadcasting
company or anyone else involved. My set, my actions, my problem.
It is the same with computers and the Internet. You have the right to
be clueless. Hire someone who isn't if you need to investigate a problem.
[snip - about alias forwarding, 2821bis and such]
Your reasoning would also mean that if I sent mail through an alias,
such a message should always arrive, even if the final destination
would reject it for other reasons such as DNSBLs, spamassassin scores,
and what more. It doesn't work that way.
If someone chooses to use SPF, be it deliberately or unknowingly, they
are bound by a more restrictive set of rules.
2nd remark about that part of 2821bis: *after* alias expansion, either
delivery or forwarding happens. Now read 3.9, 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 again.
3.9.2 says: "Note that
the key difference between handling aliases (Section 3.9.1) and
forwarding (this subsection) is the change to the backward-pointing
address in this case.
"
3.9 says: "When a message is
delivered or forwarded to each address of an expanded list form, the
return address in the envelope ("MAIL FROM:") MUST be changed to be
the address of a person or other entity who administers the list.
"
Combined with 3.9.1, I read this as:
sales(_at_)example(_dot_)com is an alias
the alias expands to
- user1(_at_)example(_dot_)com
- user(_at_)example(_dot_)com
- user3(_at_)other(_dot_)example
user1(_at_)example(_dot_)com and user2(_at_)example(_dot_)com can be delivered
right away, but
for user3(_at_)other(_dot_)example one needs to forward the message. This means
changing the return address.
But I'm sure this is open to interpretation, because that entire part
of the rfc is disagreeing with itself. Example: 3.9.2 says
" operate by "redistribution" rather than
by "forwarding".
"
and then continues by saying "...forwarding (this subsection)...".
So, 3.9.2 is about redistribution rather than forwarding, it is about
forwarding... yeah, clear, so is it or is it not about forwarding ?
Sigh.
-------------------------------------------
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=86452649-f62673
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com