In article <[email protected]>,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
> >>all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
> >>preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
>
> On 22.07.13 08:50, Barry S. Finkel wrote:
> >It is not Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt that "SPF breaks forwarding".
> >SPF *DOES* break forwarding.
>
> No, it does not. If a mail gets delivered to address, which is sending it
> further ("forwarding it"), the envelope sender has to be changed, because
> it's not the original sender who sends the another mail. Forwarding without
> changing envelope address is already broken, it's just people don't care
> without SPF.
>
> > I have a case I am researching right now
> >where forwarded mail is undeliverable due to SPF checking at the
> >new destination.
>
> Rewrite the sender's address. You have more choices, SRS is one of them.
They're talking about auto-forwarding, not people resending a message
they received. For instance, mail to [email protected] is
automatically forwarded by the alum.mit.edu server to my ISP email
address. Many people also have vanity domains with auto-forwarding
enabled like this.
Who should the sender be changed to? AFAIK, it has never been standard
practice to rewrite the sender when simply forwarding to an alias, which
is what this is.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
