John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> wrote:
That's not the question. Of course they can change their systems.
They could set up outbound servers for their users, or in some flavors
of LMAP they could say that their mail can come from anywhere. The
real question is whether the benefits of LMAP are worth the cost and
hassle to them and their users.
I'm not arguing it is. I've always tried to focus on the
cost/benefit approach. But I'm saying that some systems have already
made this decision.
I suppose we all see what we want to.
I see politics rather than technical discussion. I see people who
don't want to implement LMAP trying to prevent others from
implementing it.
My abuse.net system should be a poster child for LMAP, since all the
real mail comes from two fixed IPs and it's forged in vast amounts
of spam, but I have yet to be persuaded that the benefits of LMAP
are equal to its costs.
That's your perogative. I've never claimed that everyone should be
forced to implement it. I've stated that people should be *permitted*
to implement it, if they believe that the benefits outweigh the costs.
The distinction between the two points of view is lost on many
people.
In the other direction, my wife uses an alumna address at
cornell.edu but sends mail from here.
And to ask my perennial idiotic question: How does the recipient
tell that the message is valid?
You're assuming that these are valid use-cases. You're right, they
are, from your point of view. But the recipient may disagree, which
is a valid decision from his point of view.
Having said all this, I still think that the only way to find out if
network operators in general find LMAP worthwhile is to define a
version of it for people to try and let us know how they like it.
I thought that's what was happening with SPF.
Alan DeKok.