Re: Re: Why SRS really sucks

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 13:30 +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > So all e-mail aliases and mailing lists are 'fake' addresses?  Is a 
> > postmaster@ address 'fake' because it is forwarded to some real person's 
> > address?  Does my work address become fake while I'm on vacation just 
> > because it gets forwarded to someone else?  I don't think this definition 
> > of 'fake' is very helpful.
> 
> 'virtual' is a better word, perhaps. Where you cross the line between
> 'virtual' and 'fake' is subjective. I don't think there's any point in
> us trying to _agree_ on precisely where that line is -- and there's no
> point in you haranguing Johann about it either. 

A 'virtual' mailbox is one that does not require SRS - because it 
was requested by a competent admin or user who is not so stupid as
to reject their own forwards because of SPF fail.

A 'fake' mailbox is one that uses SRS in a misguided attempt to
work around broken recipient SPF configurations.

This does not mean SRS is bad.  It is only bad when used as a codependency
inspired workaround for broken SPF configurations.


-- 
	      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.