Re: Re: Why SRS really sucks

On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 11:01 -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> This does not mean SRS is bad.  It is only bad when used as a
> codependency inspired workaround for broken SPF configurations.

That's perhaps true, although it's ironic to note that SRS was
_designed_ as a workaround for the brokenness of SPF.

You seem to be agreeing with what I said to Stephan -- which is that SRS
should be used sparingly (if at all), rather than doing it
unconditionally just in _case_ the recipient has invented some spurious
reason to reject normally-forwarded mail. Yes?

-- 
dwmw2