Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> writes: > Dnia 26.05.2023 o godz. 13:16:39 Scott Mutter via mailop pisze: >> If you ask me - a better solution would be to do away with forwarding >> completely and incorporate POP checks, like Gmail does. This alleviates >> all of the issues with forwarding mail in relation to SPF and DKIM. > > No, because you are replacing a service that operates on a "push" principle > - which is the very basis of email - by a service that operates on a "pull" > principle. > > You don't need any active action on your part to receive email someone sends > you, even if it is forwarded. > On the contrary, you *do* require constant active checking of the POP > account you want to download mail from. If you stop checking, you won't get > the mail. If you change the password on your POP account, you need to change > it also on the downloading side etc. - a lot of actual inconveniences. > > With that way of thinking, you can get rid of email completely, and just > regularly check some website where people can write messages for you... > > And, taking into account that POP is quite outdated, many sites don't > implement it anymore and offer IMAP only. So downloading via POP won't work > anyway. > >> If forwarding mail is so important, can a better system >> for handling forwarded mail be developed? > > Since forwarding was before SPF, I would trun this question the other way: > if checking the "legitimacy" of the sending server is so important, can a > better system for handling this (that takes mail forwarding into account) be > developed? > > Myself, I don't think that SPF and other methods of checking "authenticity" > of the email are so important at all. Normal, unsigned email is an > *untrusted* method of communication *by definition*. If you want email to > be "authenticated", you should end-to-end sign it with your PGP or PKI > private key when sending. Period. > > I don't check SPF, DKIM or DMARC on incoming mail at all. Content checking > and blacklist checking is much more important in actual spam prevention than > doubtful "authenticity" checking. That's of course my opinion, you can have > a different one.
Hellow Jaroslaw! Whooa, you have good insight and view. I do agree with you, and thanks! Sincerely, Byung-Hee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))// _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
