On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
My viewpoint is not the standard SPF one. The standard SPF viewpoint
(which I joined the list to fight) seems to be that forwarders should
solve Problem S themselves with SRS and just suck up Problems B and K.
The standard SPF viewpoint is that forwarding is requested by the
receiver, and is the responsibility of the receiver. SRS doesn't
solve any forwarding problems - it just makes whitelisting (or otherwise
identifying forwarded mail from) the forwarder easier. Which only helps if the
recipient does whitelist (or doesn't track reputation - effectively
whitelisting everyone). Forwarding problems are problems with
receiver policy, not sender policies. A forwarder is acting as an
agent of the receiver - but is often not given the information or
standing by the receiver to carry out their function effectively.
What this discussion is highlighting is not a problem with Sender Policies,
but the need for some *receiver* policies to be propagated to forwarders in an
automatic fashion. For instance, if AOL made their ip blacklist available
by DNS, it would help forwarders avoid forwarding mail AOL users don't
like. (Though would likely cause other problems.)
--
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=87509727-c3bd89
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com