spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Forwarder whitelisting reloaded

2008-01-17 04:12:02
David MacQuigg wrote:
Maybe we could show direct relationships with == and indirect relationships with ~~ and "same ADMD" relationships as MTA1/MTA2. The situation we are discussing is then illustrated as:

                               /                /====================\
Sender(s) ==> Transmitter --> / --> Receiver/Forwarder ~~> MDA ==> Recipient
                             /
                          Border       (box67.com)      (aol.com)

What I mean by a "direct relationship" is a contract, or at least a signup on a website. As an example, my service box67.com acts as a Receiver and Forwarder for an individual, Robert, who has asked us to forward his mail to aol.com. Robert has an account at aol.com, so there is also a direct relationship between him and AOL.

Thus, in case Robert's account at AOL provides for local storage you would have written ~~> MDA/Recipient?

I still have problems with forwarding from MDA. Scripts or similar means to (conditionally) forward messages are in a different position w.r.t. the Receiver/Forwarder mainstream.

In facts, we can envisage some special behavior that the forwarding MTA may accomplish in order to honor any specific agreement that encompasses forwarding mail. However, a send mail command issued in a different context may revert to the default MTA behavior. Or do we mean that the "direct relationship" should affect _any_ mail exchange from box67 to that Recipient along that path?

-------------------------------------------
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=86854614-352617
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>