Wed Jan 28 17:42:50 PST 2004
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:45:49PM -0800, Don Marti wrote:
> Causing wanton breakage is not an excuse for not trying something,
> on this list anyway. Principled objections to SPF, anyone?
How is forwarding supposed to work in the presence of SPF?
Yes, I've read the awful hack in the FAQ. That handles actually
forwarding the mail. How can a user send messages from that address
without a much sicker hack?
I use my school mail account occasionally for talking to professors
and TA's. I have the mail sent to it forwarded to my own mail server,
which is a much more agreeable solution than polling with fetchmail or
using PINE on a Solaris machine. If my school implemented SPF,
presumably I could use the forwarding hack to get the messages out of
their system. However, I don't see a way to reply to forwarded
messages without the replies looking like forgeries to a SPF-aware
system. The FAQ talks about SASL SMTP. Can mutt speak this? Even if it
could, it's even more doubtful that it could be taught to use a
different SASL SMTP server for each email address.
The situation would be even worse for ACM forwarders because I don't
believe that the ACM provides outgoing SMTP service. Thus I highly
doubt domains like ieee.org and acm.org will use SPF in the forseeable
More information about the linux-elitists