Re: SPFv3 proposal: rawfail result

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Michael Deutschmann wrote:

> "rawfail" recommends that a message be rejected always, ignoring the
> possibility that a message may have failed SPF only because it passed
> through a traditional forwarder.  Coupled with the addition, v3 "fail"
> would be explicitly defined to merely recommend rejection *if and only if*
> the recipient MX is sure that the message is not a forward.

The forwarding you are concerned about is something only the
recipient can know about or initiate.  Why would a sender want a message
rejected if the recipient happened to forward it to another mailbox?

I'm not saying it is stupid - in fact, I'll throw out a possible reason:

A bank wants to send messages directly to recipients via TLS, and
wants recipients to reject emails that came through a forwarder,
and were possibly tampered with.  

-- 
	      Stuart D. Gathman <[email protected]>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.