[Top] [All Lists]

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

2005-05-25 04:17:23

On Wed May 25 2005 01:38, wayne wrote:

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",

You have missed a crucial point; *sending* mail does *NOT* use "their

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

No, one can license use of a domain name for a period of time.  Subject
to possible litigation if your name happens to be something like Mike

and then you 
can set the rules for the domain you use.

No, because the domain name's appearance in MAIL FROM is only useful
if there are MX records pointing to two or more SMTP receivers
receiving mail for that domain name, and further only if those
pointers resolve to a stable IP address.  The use of DHCP on many
networks rules out the latter, and terms of service for many ISPs
preclude operation of servers.

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