[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt

2005-05-24 22:41:11

In <200505241504(_dot_)42014(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly 
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:

On Tue May 24 2005 13:05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
That's at the heart of the problem -- it attempts to define
a set which makes no sense; worse than that, it is harmful.

It does not _attempt_ to define this set, it only _allows_
to define this set.

But as the sender of mail, and the person affected, it doesn't
allow *ME* to do so.  If -- in a fit of stupidity -- somebody at
the ISP where I *receive* mail were to do so, I would either be
forced to use a null return path (breaking the intended function
of delivery notifications, as noted by Markus), or I would drop
that ISP like a hot potato and find one with more sense.

I'm a strong believer in "their server, their rules", and also "the
domain owner's domain, their rules".  If your ISP does anything you
really don't like, I complete agree that you should switch.  For only
a few bucks a year, you can also buy your own domain name and then you
can set the rules for the domain you use.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>