Using our new terminology, we should be able to come up with a clear and concise statement of exactly what problem(s) we are trying to solve. Our Simple Forwarding model should suffice, but add more if it will help.
|-------- Recipient's Network ---------|
/
--> / --> Receiver/Forwarder ~~> MDA ==> Recipient
/
Border
A/B Roles A and B both played by the same Actor
--> Direction of mail flow (no relationship implied)
==> Direct relationship between Actors (e.g. a contract)
~~> Indirect relationship (e.g. both directly related to Recipient)
I'll paraphrase Michael's statement, since that seems to be the best we have so far. As you may recall, he broke it down into three problems:
Problem S - To technologies like SPF, messages forwarded without re-writing the Return Address appear to be forgeries.
Problem K - Forwarders will accumulate "bad karma" when they innocently pass on spam to a downstream Agent without prior arrangement, or with arrangements that are mistakenly ignored.
Problem B - Mail may be lost when a Receiver accepts a message without authenticating the Return Address and a downstream Agent rejects it.
Can anyone improve on this? Keep in mind, we are not trying to solve the problems just yet, just see if there is any agreement on what the problems are. Also, we should try to forget all the past heated discussions. None of that matters if we can find a solution.
-- Dave
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=89696583-ead37f
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|-------- Recipient's Network ---------|
/
--> / --> Receiver/Forwarder ~~> MDA ==> Recipient
/
Border
A/B Roles A and B both played by the same Actor
--> Direction of mail flow (no relationship implied)
==> Direct relationship between Actors (e.g. a contract)
~~> Indirect relationship (e.g. both directly related to Recipient)
I'll paraphrase Michael's statement, since that seems to be the best we have so far. As you may recall, he broke it down into three problems:
Problem S - To technologies like SPF, messages forwarded without re-writing the Return Address appear to be forgeries.
Problem K - Forwarders will accumulate "bad karma" when they innocently pass on spam to a downstream Agent without prior arrangement, or with arrangements that are mistakenly ignored.
Problem B - Mail may be lost when a Receiver accepts a message without authenticating the Return Address and a downstream Agent rejects it.
Can anyone improve on this? Keep in mind, we are not trying to solve the problems just yet, just see if there is any agreement on what the problems are. Also, we should try to forget all the past heated discussions. None of that matters if we can find a solution.
-- Dave
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=89696583-ead37f
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com