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

At 10:18 am +0000 2004/03/22, David Woodhouse wrote:
>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

not if an empty env.sender is used. As I said in another post, not
using <> could cause secondary spam.

[...]
> > 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.

Of course you can't check if the env.sender. is valid if it's empty,
but we are talking about the side-effects of these methods, and the
problem here is that the other methods will reject the mail as it
looks like a bounce to an address that is never used.

Giuliano