there's one case where SPF +all is valid. That's when you already have DKIM
anyway, and in any event, only if mail from your domain can validly come from
anywhere.
The only time this'd be an issue is if you had MUAs sending directly, which
mostly doesn't exist anymore, much to my chagrin (afaik none support DKIM
outbound anyway, nor would that be a valid use of the technology).
Le 11 juillet 2023 18:29:26 UTC, Bill Cole via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> a
écrit :
>On 2023-07-11 at 13:49:32 UTC-0400 (Tue, 11 Jul 2023 19:49:32 +0200)
>Benny Pedersen via mailop <m...@junc.eu>
>is rumored to have said:
>
>> Bill Cole via mailop skrev den 2023-07-11 19:01:
>>> On 2023-07-11 at 11:08:23 UTC-0400 (Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:08:23 +0200)
>>> Benny Pedersen via mailop <m...@junc.eu>
>>> is rumored to have said:
>>>
>>>> direct to mx will have spf pass without +all, on next hub envelope sender
>>>> changes, so new spf problem when next hub forwards mails,
>>>
>>> You keep repeating this (and equivalent statements) as if it is true.
>>>
>>> ***IT IS FALSE***
>>>
>>> Unless a MTA implements something like SRS specifically to accommodate
>>> SPF, the envelope sender a mail arrives with is the same one it is
>>> relayed with, if it is being forwarded by the traditional "aliases"
>>> and ".forward" mechanisms of Sendmail and Postfix. This practice,
>>> *without SRS*, is still the most widespread form of forwarding
>>> individual addresses to other individual addresses.
>>
>> i keep what postfix does, not what any other forwarding service does, its
>> false aswell to not know how postfix works, period
>
>If that were anything close to grammatically correct I might understand it.
>
>Postfix does not modify the envelope sender when using aliases or .forward
>files to forward mail.
>>
>> https://mx.junc.eu/dmarc/junc.eu/all.txt prove my incorrect now ?
>
>I am not about to review whatever that flood of text means, and it appears to
>be likely not evidence of anything...
>
>> if you are right i would see more spf pass
>
>Non sequitur. If your assumptions are incorrect, as they clearly are, I doubt
>that your data analysis and logic are sound.
>
>Go ahead, sniff the packets or make the MTA log everything. Prove me wrong.
>
>--
>Bill Cole
>b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
>(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
>Not Currently Available For Hire
>_______________________________________________
>mailop mailing list
>mailop@mailop.org
>https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
