On Sat, 4 Jul 2009, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
You are *absolutely* correct that the lazy receiver ("forwarding")
problem is never an excuse for a sender to not use "-all".
That's all well, but we have no means to force the senders to behave. If
the sender decides the pain of having outgoing mail blocked due to an
unhandled forwarding problem (which is concentrated on the sender
himself), is a bigger risk than the pain of having forgeries get delivered
to SPF-protected mailboxes (which mainly annoys strangers), we can't stop
him from using ?all. The best we can do is provide a safer channel for
this desire.
Even if all forwarders did behave, fm= would provide a great improvement
by allowing SPF to be partially enabled in the presence of
unknown-to-the-ISP traditional forwarders. "fm=hard" allows the sender to
volunteer to take the forwarding-problem risk, and "fm=dkim" would nullify
the forwarding problem if implemented at both ends.
---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>
-------------------------------------------
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