On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 12:10:14AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> Cute idea, but I don't like the implementation much -- it would be
> better for it to be available in a general fashion from ACLs.
I looked at that first. However, since (AFAICT) the ACL system works in a
accept/reject/defer logic, my understanding was that a fourth command would had
to be added to the underlying code specificaly for this feature. Is this
appreciation correct?
> In
> particular, if I were to use it I'd want to use it _only_ for senders
> which are known to be SPF-afflicted. Those who didn't choose to break
> their email shouldn't get the 551 error.
Selective "redirecting" based purely on SPF-ness of sender is something I'm
already contemplating (I'll try to send a patch for that).
As for non-selective redirect, please note that:
- It's not only useful to workaround SPF problems. Other advantages include:
- Huge saving in bandwidth / system load.
- The final recipient isn't forced to blindly trust forwarder's mail as ham,
so they can perform the delivery-time checks of their liking (greylisting,
dnsbl, etc).
- While it's not a common feature, some MTAs already support it. sendmail
comes with non-selective (per-user) redirection in the vanilla package. qpsmtp
supports it with a plugin as well.
IMHO, it'd make sense to support both modes of operation. What do you think?
--
Robert Millan
