Re: SPFv3 proposal: rawfail result

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> 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?

Usually, they don't.  Except for the case of the VERP/exists/magic-DNS
hack, deploying "/all" would be a reckless act.

But not a senseless one.  A (non-VERP) sender who publishes "/all" is not
trying to break forwarding; he would be *accepting* the breakage of
forwarding in return for a much higher efficacy in supressing forgeries.

And again, the key advantage of "/all" is not that many senders will use
it.  It's to ensure that recipients don't accidentally assign rawfail
semantics to "-all", a problem that has ruined SPFv1 by deterring senders
from publishing it.

Giving senders the ability to use "/all" to tell a normally-cautious
validator to go wild, is just a bonus.

---- Michael Deutschmann <[email protected]>