--
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@???> [2004-02-23/15:01]:
[snip ... some misunderstandings]
I think you have misunderstood some of my statements, and so have I some
of yours. We should clearly state what we are refering to.
> What little patience I originally had for the fundamentally broken
> concepts of SPF and SRS has been reduced significantly over the last
> day or so. TBH I think I'm going to turn off my implementation and
> simply declare my forwarding machines to be SPF-incompatible, like 98%
> of the rest of the world.
As broken as they may be -- ultimately, it is *my* problem if messages
forwarded through my box will not get delivered because of the receiving
MTA using SPF or equivalent homegrown origin filters, as are currently
in use by some largish providers (GMX.net, for instance). It does not
matter who's fault it technically is; users want their mail delivered
without having to listen to technical excuses. I know no better solution
than rewriting the envelope sender, as I described here [1], but if
somebody has a better approach, I'd be delighted to hear it.
Cheers,
Dan
[1]
http://www.roe.ch/spam/return-path-rewriting.xml
--
Daniel Roethlisberger <daniel@???>
GnuPG key ID 0x804A06B1 (DSA/ElGamal)
--
[ Content of type application/pgp-signature deleted ]
--
