At 04:45 PM 12/6/2006 -0500, Scott Kiterman wrote:
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 16:36, David MacQuigg wrote:
> We don't want to encourage misuse of the Return Address, but we have to
> accept it because we cannot expect our clients to change their email
> programs. I would join with the leaders of the SPF community in
> petitioning Eudora and perhaps others to change what appears to be a
> simple, obvious problem, but I can't insist that our clients bear the
> expense or inconvenience. They will simply bow out.
I think Eudora has been an also ran in the MUA competition for many years
Their recent announcement that future development would be as a customization
of Thunderbird speaks volumes. I don't think Eudora lacking a feature should
drive your service configuration. It's been years since I ran across an MUA
with this particular shortcoming.
If Eudora is on the way out, and there aren't many others that don't offer
a Reply-To address, maybe we can "get tough" and dump some small percentage
of our clients. Of course, we will do what we can to persuade them to
change, but there will be some losses.
My mailflow is really small, so I can't tell anything other than the
dominant names in my logfiles are Outlook and Outlook Express. This is
based on the X-Mailer headers, which some programs may not provide. There
are big gaps in the sequence numbers when I grep my logfiles for X-Mailer.
Does anyone have any better data?
Maybe we should try -all for a while, and see what problems crop up.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735