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

On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 10:35 +0100, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
> As I've already said, this envelope sender munging is more broken than SPF.

Envelope sender munging is required with SPF too, in the case of
forwarding. There's where the idea came from. So while it may indeed be
problematic in certain limited cases, it's not a disadvantage when
compared to SPF.

Filling Phil's whitelist with one-time addresses, while unfortunate, is
not actually _broken_. No valid mail is getting lost.

> Besides, speaking of forwarding problems, I've seen forwarders use an
> empty envelope sender, how do your other methods cope with that?

If the envelope sender is empty the whole original problem is
meaningless. You can't check that the envelope sender is valid if it's
empty. SPF doesn't address this _either_, except for a fairly strange
option to check the HELO -- which I don't argue against.

> I do publish SPF TXT RRs (hardly ever consulted in the two months
> they've been in place..), but do not use it myself. I admit, I use
> ?all.

Right.

--
dwmw2