According to Bill Cole via mailop <mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com>: >1. SPF breaks traditional transparent forwarding, so SPF is wrong and >should be abandoned. >2. Traditional transparent forwarding breaks SPF, so traditional >transparent forwarding is wrong and should be abandoned. >3. Everyone should deploy SRS so there's no problem. Can't we all get >along? > >I was and remain in Camp #2, although I knew it would be trouble and >wandered off mumbling to myself rather than pressing the point. If I >recall correctly, John Levine was firmly on Team #1. Group #3 were the >people who drove the process of standardizing SPF.
I think I was more saying that while a SPF pass is a positive indicator an SPF fail (other than bare -all for no mail) doesn't tell you much. We did invent DKIM with one of the major goals being to have an authentication scheme that doesn't depend on the path. Forwarding still works OK for DKIM signed mail, but since DKIM signing is hard, a lot of people still cheap out and do only SPF. We also didn't anticipate how always-on connections would become fast and cheap, disk space would become free, and everyone would use IMAP so they can handle mail on multiple devices. Once you do that, most of the motivation for forwarding goes away since you can instead deliver locally and set up mail programs to check mail in multiple places. SRS never made it into the IETF standards, by the way, because the problem it was supposed to solve (forwarding delayed bounces) did not actually exist. -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
