-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Woodhouse wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think the benifits are worth the minor inconvenience associated with
these edge cases.
Perhaps -- but again, others don't see those same benefits. My users
certainly wouldn't -- BATV already gets rid of just about _all_ the fake
bounces, and also allows recipients who use SMTP callouts to reject joe
jobs _without_ much risk of losing valid mail. What further benefit
would SPF '-all' provide on top of that?
Note that I'm saying it works for me, not that AOL or Verizon or anyone
else should immediately switch to -all.
Right. Such people really would need to wait for SRS to become
ubiquitous before they could sanely consider such a move. Again, I say
'sanely' because they can _always_ do something stupid like banning all
non-US hosts, etc.
As far as I can tell, SRS isn't going to become part of default
configuration of common mailers any time soon. It's still not even
supported at all by most of them in the default build -- if you want it
you have to rebuild the MTA or install extra software.
When RFC2821 is updated and mandates SRS-like behaviour, perhaps that
will change. That's the main problem for SPF deployment en masse.
BATV is just a variant of SRS: it requires MTAs to rewrite the envelope
sender. Ergo, all the problems of SRS you mentioned so far apply to BATV
also. Yet you seem to consider those problems manageable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCylMgwL7PKlBZWjsRAv0zAJ9xLDwsZCSBM48P0KBmzbw79aeHiQCg4MS6
1+bHcjMiPnbt4RrLL05nE9Y=
=Q0sK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----