On Wed May 25 2005 09:11, wayne wrote:
In <200505250717(_dot_)18508(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
On Wed May 25 2005 01:38, wayne wrote:
I'm a strong believer in "their server, their rules",
You have missed a crucial point; *sending* mail does *NOT* use "their
servers".
That is in reference to receivers, not senders. Mail admins can check
SPF records if they want. Their server, their rules.
You can't wriggle out of the fundamental problem that way. The records
purport to assert something about a sender based on a domain name
associated with receiving delivery notifications.
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.
There are plenty of places will do the mail hosting for you. For
example, Godaddy lets you register a domain name for $9/yr, and lets
you do email for $10/yr. They also have a free email option, which
will likely be good enough for many people.
No. First, there is no "free email option". Second, the "$10/yr"
option provides 1 mailbox per domain, which isn't going to be terribly
useful unless the local-part is specified as "postmaster" as required
by the Hosts Requirements Standard (and the implementation had better
treat that local-part as case-insensitive), or is a "catch-all" (in
which case it will catch a great deal of dictionary-attack spam).
More important, you are still conflating *receipt* of email with the
independent action of *sending* email.