Re: [Exim] Fixing SPF Forward Problem by Reply-to: Hack?

On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 14:52 -0800, Avleen Vig wrote:
> I'm sorry to say this, but a minor inconvenience for
> you is not a big deal. There are solutions for the forwarding problem
> (which is really the only thing left people can use against SPF) and
> that are not hard to implement.

There isn't a coherent solution to the forwarding problem which is worth
the supposed benefit that SPF offers. A minor inconvenience for me _is_
a problem, because it's the same minor inconvenience for _everyone_ who
the SPF-advocates need to upgrade to SMTPv2 -- and that basically means
it's not going to happen, I suspect.

> I was sure I had explained it in how it disallows mail from unauthorized
> sources. This is more than verifying the sender address - it is
> verifying the legitimacy of the relay itself. If most spam comes from
> illegitimate relays, SPF does "far more" than just verify the name of
> the sender.

You still don't say why this is a _good_ thing. We know why it breaks --
but how does it _help_?

Please give an example of a spam which would be stopped by SPF but _not_
by other methods of verifying that the address in the reverse-path
really is controlled by the actual sender of the mail.

--
dwmw2