> On 26 May 2023, at 19:16, Scott Mutter via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:34 PM Brandon Long <bl...@google.com > <mailto:bl...@google.com>> wrote: >> When forwarding mail, there are two options: rewrite the envelope sender or >> not. There are a variety of pros and cons to both of them, and cases where >> one or the other is more prominent. Not rewriting has been the dominant >> form of 1:1 forwarding such as aliases and address migration, and enforcing >> SPF -all would break that use case. > > If you ask me - a better solution would be to do away with forwarding > completely and incorporate POP checks, like Gmail does. This alleviates all > of the issues with forwarding mail in relation to SPF and DKIM.
Sure, let’s do that. How? How do we get (conservatively, covering 80% of the mail in the US) 100 systems to take away functionality that users rely on. Don’t forget, you’ll need to explain to those systems why they should do it, how they should explain it to users and full training programs for customer support staff to be able to deal with the influx of calls from upset people who are no longer able to use functionality they are accustomed to. You’ll also need to provide ample time for forwarding only services (like alumni accounts) to go through a budget cycle to acquire hardware and employees to manage the POP services for their users. Some states have 2 year budget cycles, so we’re probably looking at a minimum 3 to 4 years before they’ll be able to transition. > But I know that stance is wildly unpopular since it breaks the "it used to > work that way" narrative. But at some point you add so much to a system that > it becomes so bloated and overloaded that nothing can be accomplished. The > more simple a system is the more efficient it is going to be. Outside of > external mail server forwarders, a properly constructed SPF record can go a > long, long way towards alleviating the spam problem. How? I’ll give you a hint: spammers use SPF, too! > How much is it worth to keep external forwarders working at the cost of spam > prevention? SPF was never expected to solve the spam problem. I know the original author claimed it would, but the rest of the folks working on it were very clear this was not a spam solution. > If forwarding mail is so important, can a better system for handling > forwarded mail be developed? I'm just not sure if the answer is to continue > to add systems and directives to email to solve all of this. All the questions I asked above will also need to be answered for deploying a new solution to forwarding. These are major hurdles to adoption, so they should really be addressed as part of the protocol development stage. laura -- The Delivery Experts Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com Email Delivery Blog: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
