Joseph Brennan wrote:
>> what "own rules"? I'm talking that forwarding without changing sender's
>> address is broken already and I described how and why. SPS just
>> highlights
>> this problem and SRS is trying to solve it...

>
> I don't see this necessity to change the sender address anywhere
> in RFC 2821. In fact it differentiates between lists where you do
> change the sender and aliases where you do not.


Let's see if I've got this right:

"There are practical problems with forwarding, whether you do SPF or not."

"No, there are no problems with forwarding, because the RFC says it's okay."

I'm sensing a disconnect here.

I assume everyone here has heard the joke about the difference between
theory and practice?

--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications