Using our new terminology, we should be able to come up with a clear and
concise statement of exactly what problem(s) we are trying to solve. Our
Simple Forwarding model should suffice, but add more if it will help.
|-------- Recipient's Network ---------|
/
--> / --> Receiver/Forwarder ~~> MDA ==> Recipient
/
Border
A/B Roles A and B both played by the same Actor
--> Direction of mail flow (no relationship implied)
==> Direct relationship between Actors (e.g. a contract)
~~> Indirect relationship (e.g. both directly related to Recipient)
I'll paraphrase Michael's statement, since that seems to be the best we have so
far. As you may recall, he broke it down into three problems:
Problem S - To technologies like SPF, messages forwarded without re-writing the
Return Address appear to be forgeries.
Problem K - Forwarders will accumulate "bad karma" when they innocently pass on
spam to a downstream Agent without prior arrangement, or with arrangements that
are mistakenly ignored.
Problem B - Mail may be lost when a Receiver accepts a message without
authenticating the Return Address and a downstream Agent rejects it.
Can anyone improve on this? Keep in mind, we are not trying to solve the
problems just yet, just see if there is any agreement on what the problems are.
Also, we should try to forget all the past heated discussions. None of that
matters if we can find a solution.
-- Dave
-------------------------------------------
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=89696870-4bd6bb
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com