New warning message...

[Barry S. Finkel]

On 7/22/2013 11:17 AM, bind-users-request at lists.isc.org wrote:
>>> This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
>>> >>all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
>>> >>preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
> On 22.07.13 08:50, Barry S. Finkel wrote:
>> >It is not Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt that "SPF breaks forwarding".
>> >SPF*DOES*  break forwarding.

> No, it does not. If a mail gets delivered to address, which is sending it
> further ("forwarding it"), the envelope sender has to be changed, because
> it's not the original sender who sends the another mail.  Forwarding without
> changing envelope address is already broken, it's just people don't care
> without SPF.

>> >  I have a case I am researching right now
>> >where forwarded mail is undeliverable due to SPF checking at the
>> >new destination.
> Rewrite the sender's address. You have more choices, SRS is one of them.
>
> -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/

I have no control over what my Mail User Agent does. And a quick reading
of section 3.6.6 of RFC 5322 does not tell me what is the correct action
on a forwarded message:

      1) Change the "From:" address, or

      2) Keep the "From:" address.

My MUA, Thunderbird, does 1).  And I do not see any configuration
option.  I am not sure which action is "correct".

I do not know what implications for forwarding SMTP (RFC 5321) has.
--Barry Finkel