----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Drake" <christopher(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
To: "Wechsler" <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:32 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [spf-discuss] Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF
Your SPF idea is something that ISPs *are* going to use to block
emails without sender and recipient permission
The only thing you can be sure of, is that SPF compliant mail servers will
reject mail on "fail". Blocking servers who do not publish SPF records
would, currently, be tantamount to blocking 99.9999% of all servers,
world-wide. I doubt you will see people do that. :) Actually, ere the
reverse is true: only when 99.9999% of all servers are SPF compliant, might
blocking non-SPF compliant servers be a good thing to consider.
You wrote "SPF was initially proposed by a remailer service."... well,
go on then: explain to me step-by-step how this "remailer service" is
going to allow me to send my email from my hotmail.com address to
someone whos ISP uses SPF?
Ay, there is the rub; it is not *your* hotmail address. It belongs to
Microsoft. If, at some time, Microsoft decides to protect the integrity of
their domain name, then who are you to argue?
Oh yes - and in case it needed saying,
lets pretend that Microsoft refuse to list your remaillers IP address
in any of their DNS servers...
Then you will just have to live with that. Or shell out a measly $9 bucks a
year to get your own domain name, and publish your own SPF records.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡