On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 10:47:43AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2025 at 11:55:56AM +0200, Ralph Aichinger wrote: > > I absolutely love bouncing mails in mutt instead of forwarding. I need > > some mail on the address I use on my mobile: Just bounce it. I only do > > this to my own mail addresses. > > > > Am I alone in this use case of bounces? Or is this considered an > > abuse? > > I don't see how sending email to yourself can be considered abusive. > > It's rare I will use this feature any more because modern email sender > authentication measures are more likely to make the mail fail to arrive. If your server does those things. Mine doesn't: I trust the users on it. [...] > From: sender@example.com > To: you@example.edu > > and you bounce that to you@gmail.com, it will arrive at gmail from your > current IP address and with From: address still listed as > sender@example.com. Since your current network probably isn't authorised > to send email for example.com, if example.com uses SPF this will be an > SPF failure. It will also likely be a DKIM failure due to some added and > changed headers. If both fail then this will additionally be a DMARC > failure. SPF and its ilk are quite another kettle of fish. Since it is the receiver who decides to act on those policies (or not), this isn't relevant to the case which started this thread, the spam reporting interface for the Debian mailing lists, <report-listspam@lists.debian.org>. I'd expect it to accept such bounces despite SPF failures. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature