[Asrg] Re: More e-mail oddities; SPF thoughts

[Douglas Campbell <doug.campbell at craniumpro.com>]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> A message that is re-routed by .forward is FROM the original author.  
> A message re-routed by an MUA is FROM the user of that MUA.


Dave,

I understand the difference.  I question the reason for the difference, 
given that the current
MTA ".forward" mechanism and aliasing appear to stand in the way of 
allowing a
straightforward SPF implementation, particularly because the "original 
author" can be foreign to
the MTA doing the forwarding.  These problems appear to go away when 
"user-initiated" or MUA
forwarding is performed, because the author as specified in the envelope 
is then perceived as local
to the MTAs by both them and any foreign MTA which is a target of the 
forwarding.

I've gotten some e-mail indicating that because the .forward mechanism 
predates RFC-822,
it must be implemented the way it is.  I'm not sure I agree with that.  
I'd like to see an example
of why the .forward method as now implemented is better than the MUA 
method of wrappering
the forwarded materials in another envelope (with "local postage" 
applied, so to speak).  At the
present time, I don't see any advantage, and at least one disadvantage 
(it breaks simple SPF, requiring
a whole 'nuther layer of complexity).

Cheers,
Doug Campbell


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