On 2023-07-11 at 13:49:32 UTC-0400 (Tue, 11 Jul 2023 19:49:32 +0200) Benny Pedersen via mailop <m...@junc.eu> is rumored to have said:
> Bill Cole via mailop skrev den 2023-07-11 19:01: >> On 2023-07-11 at 11:08:23 UTC-0400 (Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:08:23 +0200) >> Benny Pedersen via mailop <m...@junc.eu> >> is rumored to have said: >> >>> direct to mx will have spf pass without +all, on next hub envelope sender >>> changes, so new spf problem when next hub forwards mails, >> >> You keep repeating this (and equivalent statements) as if it is true. >> >> ***IT IS FALSE*** >> >> Unless a MTA implements something like SRS specifically to accommodate >> SPF, the envelope sender a mail arrives with is the same one it is >> relayed with, if it is being forwarded by the traditional "aliases" >> and ".forward" mechanisms of Sendmail and Postfix. This practice, >> *without SRS*, is still the most widespread form of forwarding >> individual addresses to other individual addresses. > > i keep what postfix does, not what any other forwarding service does, its > false aswell to not know how postfix works, period If that were anything close to grammatically correct I might understand it. Postfix does not modify the envelope sender when using aliases or .forward files to forward mail. > > https://mx.junc.eu/dmarc/junc.eu/all.txt prove my incorrect now ? I am not about to review whatever that flood of text means, and it appears to be likely not evidence of anything... > if you are right i would see more spf pass Non sequitur. If your assumptions are incorrect, as they clearly are, I doubt that your data analysis and logic are sound. Go ahead, sniff the packets or make the MTA log everything. Prove me wrong. -- Bill Cole b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Not Currently Available For Hire _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
