Alessandro Vesely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > [...]
> > Now someone at pobox.com (which is SPF protected) sends me a message
> > to my cpan.org address. The cpan.org MTA forwards the message to the
> > mehnle.net MTA, which sees the "pobox.com" envelope sender being used
>
--On 20. November 2004 12:21 +0100 Alessandro Vesely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
[...]
To solve the problem, cpan.org would have to rewrite the envelope sender
to something at cpan.org before forwarding the message.
That not only requires cpan.org to implement SPF, but also SRS.
Julian Mehnle wrote:
> [...]
> Now someone at pobox.com (which is SPF protected) sends me a message to my
> cpan.org address. The cpan.org MTA forwards the message to the mehnle.net
> MTA, which sees the "pobox.com" envelope sender being used on a message
> coming from a cpan.org MTA. But the pobo
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
Alessandro Vesely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is still not clear why one would rewrite senders. SPF should work
if everybody takes the burden of declaring what are the mail servers
they use.
Suppose I have an account with the CPAN project and thus have
Julian Mehnle writes:
Alessandro Vesely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is still not clear why one would rewrite senders. SPF should work
if everybody takes the burden of declaring what are the mail servers
they use.
Suppose I have an account with the CPAN project and thus have the e-mail
address <[EMA
Alessandro Vesely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It is still not clear why one would rewrite senders. SPF should work
> if everybody takes the burden of declaring what are the mail servers
> they use.
Suppose I have an account with the CPAN project and thus have the e-mail
address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Julian Mehnle wrote:
>
> In the "old times" of the Internet where a.com (everybody) could send a
> message and claim it to come from x.com, forwarders would have to take no
> responsibility for what domains are used as the sender addresses of the
> mail they forward. As a result, everybody could
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
There have been multiple versions of the same basic concept -- when
forwarding, replace the original return address with something that goes
back to the forwarder; when the forwarder receives a bounce, it figures
out, somehow, where the original message came from, and for
Pierre Ossman writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
Huh? Do I understand you right that you think adding SRS support to
Courier would unconditionally turn it into an open relay?
Pretty much. This has been discussed before.
Do you have a link to this discussion? I wasn't able to fi
Pierre Ossman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The current solution would be to turn of SPF checks for the mail servers
> where you can receive relayed mail from. But this is not something
> people are comfortable with if it is a public relaying service.
It is your _only_ choice if no sender rewriting i
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Julian Mehnle writes:
> > Huh? Do I understand you right that you think adding SRS support to
> > Courier would unconditionally turn it into an open relay?
>
> Pretty much. This has been discussed before.
Well, SRS is considered to be safe by the SPF pr
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
Huh? Do I understand you right that you think adding SRS support to
Courier would unconditionally turn it into an open relay?
Pretty much. This has been discussed before.
Do you have a link to this discussion? I wasn't able to find it in the
archives
Julian Mehnle writes:
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pierre Ossman writes:
> I just wanted to know what the plans are for adding SRS support to
> courier.
>
> Since courier recently got SPF support I've been starting to add it to
> the sites I administer. Unfortunatly I use forwarding in
--On 17. November 2004 19:11 +0100 Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I just wanted to know what the plans are for adding SRS support to
courier.
There is no need to hardcode this functionality into courier,
and could cause problems because of the secrets which prevent
relaying.
Is this som
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pierre Ossman writes:
> > I just wanted to know what the plans are for adding SRS support to
> > courier.
> > [...]
> > Is this something that is going to be added in the near future? Or are
>
> No. Because adding it will turn the mail server into an open
Sam Varshavchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pierre Ossman writes:
> > I just wanted to know what the plans are for adding SRS support to
> > courier.
> >
> > Since courier recently got SPF support I've been starting to add it to
> > the sites I administer. Unfortunatly I use forwarding in a number o
Pierre Ossman writes:
I just wanted to know what the plans are for adding SRS support to courier.
Since courier recently got SPF support I've been starting to add it to
the sites I administer. Unfortunatly I use forwarding in a number of
places so SRS support (or something equivalent) is needed b
I just wanted to know what the plans are for adding SRS support to courier.
Since courier recently got SPF support I've been starting to add it to
the sites I administer. Unfortunatly I use forwarding in a number of
places so SRS support (or something equivalent) is needed before I can
fully ena
18 matches
Mail list logo
