Les Mikesell wrote: > Where would you like bounces and failure delivery notices for this > wrapped message to go? SRS defines a kludge to make things work, but it > has to run at the forwarding site which has no requirement to do so. If > you create a new message with the old as an attachment, you'd have to > supply new non-envelope headers as well. Who is the From: for this new > message?
Isn't this my point? SMTP is broken. We keep having to use 'fixes' because the spec allows abuse so easily. The problem with many of the best fixes is that they don't work if everyone does not participate. Frankly, we need a clean break from SMTP. Is anyone working on SMTP2? The protocol is mostly ok. If SMTP2 were to remove some of the SMTP spec such as open relays and blind forwarding as well as add in SPF, MSA, and other best practices of SMTP; toss in a few changes to headers and tweaks; run on a new port and voila! email coming in on SMTP2 is easier to manage than SMTP--not perfect or flawless--just easier to manage. Given this scenario, SMTP would run in parallel to SMTP2 for many years. Ideally SMTP traffic would subside given the incentive to move to the new and improved SMTP2. I know. I'm living in lala land. But that's what it takes to make improvements. We have to be tired of the status quo enough to want to change. -- JT Moree
