On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, David MacQuigg wrote:
Big ESPs won't listen to us, but they will listen to their customers.
After a few thousand complaints, or even questions like - "Hey Mr. Yahoo,
how come all my forwarded mail goes into the [bulk] folder? Why can't I
whitelist my forwarders?"
Or, "I want to consolidate my mail, at your mailstore for [whatever
reason], but [Other ISP] is refusing to do it due to some weird technical
problem they say is at your end. Their explanation is at [URL], maybe you
can sort it out..."
After hearing that, they will eventually modify their whitelisting
option, so it works with a domain name, not necessarily a full address.
That's not the right direction.
One advantage SWK-SPF has over the other hacks I've seen proposed is that
the token used to identify a forwarder can be exactly the same as the
input address to the forward. This makes things more luser-resistant.
If we develop a TENBOX/O solution, then tokens that don't match the
forwarding address could be added to the whitelist of end-users with
little trouble, if the ISPs involved are on the ball.
But most users will probably look into their whitelist once in a while,
and "garbage collect" entries that they don't understand. For example, a
user might kill a mysterious-to-him "forward-co.example" entry, not
knowing that it is needed to support his alias
<jdoe(_at_)bunny-lovers(_dot_)example>.
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
-------------------------------------------
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=93704947-c82ab8
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com