New warning message...

Matus UHLAR - fantomas uhlar at
Tue Jul 23 12:36:55 UTC 2013

>In article <mailman.881.1374508134.20661.bind-users at>,
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uhlar at> wrote:
>> 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.

On 22.07.13 12:22, Barry Margolin wrote:
>They're talking about auto-forwarding, not people resending a message
>they received. For instance, mail to barmar at is
>automatically forwarded by the server to my ISP email
>address. Many people also have vanity domains with auto-forwarding
>enabled like this.

I'm afraid the same applies even in these cases.
How can you differ between vanity forwarder and spam/phish with fake from

>> Rewrite the sender's address. You have more choices, SRS is one of them.

This would help in other ways too - at my former employer we've had to deal
with broken forwardings, therefore undeliverable mail and undeliverable
bounces.  Rewriting sender and properly detecting undeliverable garbage
helps there too.

>Who should the sender be changed to?  AFAIK, it has never been standard
>practice to rewrite the sender when simply forwarding to an alias, which
>is what this is.

Because they did not care. Long time ago even open relays were not an issue
until people started abusing them.

...OK this is off-topic here. However this was already discussed and the
conclusion was that the SPF record is NOT dead. We just need enough time to
deal with these issues.

Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at ;
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I don't have lysdexia. The Dog wouldn't allow that.

More information about the bind-users mailing list