Meng Weng Wong wrote
Or, suppose things go well and we see a 50% adoption rate among the
domain owner pool. An overzealous fraction of the MTA community might
decide that it's time to drop all domains that don't publish SPF
records, and judge "none" the worse result. Then you'd see a lot of
domains scrambling to publish "v=spf1 ?all". But once they have, in
their minds, dealt with the annoyance of SPF, they might not go back and
set things up properly.
I don't want to create a language in which we create an arms race of
hype, where people bluff and second-guess each other from opposite
poles. If a domain wishes to be treated as though it had no SPF, we
should respect its wishes.
To start, I'm not much of a programmer which is where I guess this whole
discussion comes from, but in any case, this has been on of my biggest
unspoken disagreements with some of the prevailing sentiment on the list.
My personal opinion is that eventually the presence and content of SPF
records will simply be a few additions to the many rules for processing
spam. For example, I see in the future something like "If SPF check fails,
consider as spam. If SPF check passes, consider as a positive, check
blacklists. If no SPF record, process as usual." Personally, I want the
ability in my spam software or outsources spam processor to have options.
And once SPF reaches a moderately high rate (80% or so) of adoption I would
set my configuration to simply drop ALL mail that either 1) has no SPF
record or 2) does not explicitly PASS an SPF check (?all doesn't count). To
me, it's going to evolve to being about the same as having a open SMTP
relay.
Marc
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡