RE: Question abour SRS in sendmail

Seth Goodman writes:
> While SRS is one way to accomplish forwarding broken by SPF, SES integrates
> more easily with SPF without the cooperation of any forwarders or the final
> recipient, for that matter.

SRS vs. SES depends on your perspective.  SES addresses the problem as
seen by senders whose mail may not arrive due to forwarding, whereas
SRS addresses the problem as seen by forwarders trying to forward mail
from unsophisticated senders to unsophisticated recipients behind SPF
barriers.

If you're a forwarder, SES won't help you unless senders of mail to
your users implement it, but you csn solve your forwarding problem
using SRS.  If you're a sender, SRS won't help you unless forwarders
implement it, but you can solve your own forwarding problem using SES.

SES-signed email forwarded by a forwarder using SRS may lose its
authentication, but it will still go through.  (A little smarts in the
receive-side SES implementation can preserve the authentication.)

If you're a forwarder, implement SRS.  It will save you some grief.

I'm a forwarder running SRS based on

	      http://srs-socketmap.info/sendmailsrs.htm

with modifications for a more complex setup than a single server.  If
I get a chance, I may write up how I did this and post it on my
website.  If so, I'll post a note here.

--
Dick St.Peters, [email protected] 
Gatekeeper, NetHeaven, Saratoga Springs, NY