Re: [Asrg] Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.

[David Maxwell <david at crlf.net>]

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2004-07-30 18:18:04 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> > "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-asrg at hjp.at> wrote:
> > >On 2004-07-29 15:40:56 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> > >> Bill Cole <grsa at billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > The original SPF/RMX/DRIP proposals broke forwarders, the mess that
> > >> > MS has proposed and Yahoo's Domain Keys do not. SPF has a workaround
> > >> > for forwarders.
> > >>
> > >> Incorrect. Sender-ID breaks forwarders just as much as SPF does,
> 
> Maybe we should define what we mean by the term "forwarders". For me,
> they are MTAs which accept mail to an address A, and - under the control
> of the owner of A - pass it on to a different address B. MTAs which
> don't change the recipient address aren't forwarders, but relays.
> 
> The distinction is critical for sender authentication schemes, because a
> relay should always be under either the control of the sender or the
> recipient, but a forwarder may be neither.

I would phrase that slightly differently. I would say that having a
forwarder in the delivery path actually splits the path into two
separate message deliveries.

The original sender sends to the forwarder (intermediate recipient).

The forwarder (intermediate sender) send to the original recipient.

The forwarder may not be under control of the original sender or
original recipient, but it has become both a sender and a recipient
itself.

-- 
David Maxwell, david at vex.net|david at maxwell.net -->
All this stuff in twice the space would only look half as bad!
					      - me


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg