[mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 9/4/2007

[Eliot Lear]

John,
> Except that breaks an actual use case.  I have a bunch of mail
> addresses other places that forward mail to my regular address.  The
> forwarders are all easy to recognize due to fixed IP addresses and
> consistent received header syntax.  The AR headers that the forwarders
> add would be quite useful to me, and I really don't want to have to go
> patching my MTA to tell it what users expect mail forwarded from what
> places in order to get to look at them.
>   

To start with, while perhaps SPs would, as an enterprise administrator I
won't care about this use case.  My concern will be more how my clients
actually figure out who to trust and I want them to only trust my border
MTAs, and I want no ambiguity about it.  Further, if I'm stripping I am
adding my own, and for some time to come that is likely to mean that I
am applying the same algorithms that your forwarders would have
applied.  As long as your forwarders don't break signatures you should
be good.  I could see a use case for SPF where the check will fail
because the forwarder isn't in the list, but then I have to weigh that
against the MASSIVE hole that opens up that would make SPF useless.

Eliot