On September 11, 2004 at 11:56 matthias(_at_)astrum(_dot_)ch (Matthias
Leisi) wrote:
> $DIALUP_ISP that adds it's whole dialup-range as "legitimate
> mailservers" for $DIALUP_DOMAIN is of course free to do
so, but that
> would be less-than-intelligent.
So your point relies on $D* never doing anything that is
less-than-intelligent?
This is your opinion and you are welcome to it. This is not a technical
fact.
But this isn't a technical hurdle, merely a presumption about how $D*
might behave.
I am sure that the $D will do what is in it's best interest. Mute
point.
[snip]
They may have little choice, from their point of view, either because
they perceive this as a marketing aspect (why don't they block port 25
now?), or their economic/business model doesn't allow for the sort of
e-mail infrastructure which provides for officially relays. Or, more
likely, a little of each (since one policy tends to lead to the
other.)
Another broad based assumption. Many IP's do not close port 25 due to
technical issues surrounding network IP assignments and Subletted IP
block ranges.
SPF will allow them to limit these without having to resort to
expensive, difficult and time consuming network changes.
Ooops... did I just bring up a new benefit to SPF?
[snip]
Can't wanadoo.fr publish an SPF record allowing
ABordeaux-251-2-10-162.w82-125.abo.wanadoo.fr to send email directly?
Not "are they likely to", or "it wouldn't seem to be in their best
interest", but just: Can they or not?
I admit I might be missing something here but thus far it's been like
grabbing smoke trying to get to the bottom of this.
I do not speak for wanadoo or any other ISP. It seems to me that it
could tie in with my previous statement, in that an ISP could package an
SPF record as "value-add".
Regards,
Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg