Re: SPFv3 proposal: rawfail result

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> Then maybe we should make it one.  It is a simpler and easier alternative to
> deploying SRS (although more trouble for the final receiver).

It would work better to promulgate Sham SRS, which would avoid the
scalability problem of your hack.

(To those not paying attention to the forums in 2008, Sham SRS means
discarding the SRS goal of transmitting bounce messages back to the
original sender.  Instead, the envelope sender is rewritten to a constant
value, which accepts no mail.)


But this is a distraction from the question I originally pondered, which
is -- given a site that has whitelisted all its friendly incoming
forwards, yet is using a whitelisting heuristic that the forwarding
entities have not promised not to break, can it reject on an ordinary fail
when the whitelist engine says "not a trusted forward"?

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