On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Alan DeKok wrote:
Tony Finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> wrote:
If I naively start checking SPF records I will get involved because my
users will kick up a fuss about their legitimate email being rejected.
Your users may think it's legitimate, but if it doesn't pass SPF
checks, then the domain name they're using doesn't agree.
Resolving that problem is an issue between those users, and the name
of the domain they're using.
That sounds like a statement that you are taking on the responsibility for
any problems that arise when you email a forwarding address.
I'll feel free to ignore your bogus SPF policy then.
Now you're getting personal.
No, I'll ignore everyone's :-)
And I find it interesting that you admit you're not going to follow
the policies that other domains publish. If this is true, I fail to
see why you're active in this group, as any standard reached here will
not be published, or checked, by you.
It would also appear that you're opposed to the charter goals of
this group, or at the least, not interested in them.
I am interested in encouraging the group to agree on a standard that
doesn't break 5% of the legitimate email handled by my systems. From the
point of view of MTA authorization, I think CSV is the best solution
suggested so far. From the point of view of eliminating backscatter, I
think BATV is the best solution suggested so far. I am actively
contributing to both of these efforts. I am also working on extending BATV
into a mechanism that can eliminate envelope forgery far more effectively
and compatibly than SPF.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
NORTH FITZROY SOLE: WEST OR SOUTHWEST 6 TO GALE 8, VEERING NORTHWEST 5 TO 7.
SHOWERS. MAINLY GOOD.