Dnia 5.11.2023 o godz. 13:53:46 Noel Butler via Postfix-users pisze: > If correctly forwarded it does not break SPF, since correctly > forwarding rewrites the sender, I was an early adopter of SPF and > always used hard-fail, no lists have rejected my posts from SPF > (trust me, if they did, I sure as hell still wouldn't be using > -all), I have also applied the same in $dayjob over all these years, > so I'd be the first to know if it was still a problem.
And *why* in the first place we define "plain" forwarding, without SRS, as "incorrect", and with SRS as "correct"? It's only from the SPF point of view, ie. the first one doesn't work with SPF, while the second does. But because the default forwarding method used by all MTAs (especially by Postfix) without any additional software, is the "plain" forwarding that doesn't use SRS, I would insist that it is the "correct" method. As a consequence, SPF as a whole is "incorrect" by the very basic principles it's based on. It's only a matter of point of view. If we assume a point of view that associating a sender domain with a particular set of sending servers (which SPF does) is "correct", then forwarding without SRS is "incorrect". If we assume, on the contrary, that forwarding without SRS *has to work*, because it always was and still is there as the default, then SPF is "incorrect" and forwarding is "correct". (Of course, I mean here SPF with "-all", if you use "~all" or "?all", that's tolerable). Myself, I always was and still am for the second option. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub." _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
