On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
I like SPF, however, I've always had a problem with the arrogant
attitude some show towards the forwarding problem -- that receiverside
implentors should ignore it to force forwarders to change. (I instead
think receivers should only deploy SPF on each mailbox once it is
confirmed that all forwarders are whitelisted.)
You are correct. The forwarding problem is strictly a receiver
issue. Only the receiver can know who their forwarders are, since
they "hired" them. SRS is never necessary when a receiver is on the
ball. (In real life, receivers set up forwards willy nilly with no
record or memory of what they have done.) You will find your recommendation
in Best Practices on openspf.org.
Asking a forwarder to implement SRS is strictly a convenience for
a lazy receiver. However, this is not as arrogant as you imply,
since the forwarder "works" for the receiver.
You are *absolutely* correct that the lazy receiver ("forwarding") problem is
never an excuse for a sender to not use "-all". Things like emails
sent by 3rd parties like web sites could be such an excuse for the sender,
but the "Web Generated" instructions in openspf.org will eliminate
the problem when properly implemented by the 3rd party sender.
--
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
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com