Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity.
2004-01-13 05:36:21
Chris Drake wrote:
99% of the world don't own their own mail server, so your initial
objection hopelessly misses the point.
And 99%of the world are fed up with spam.
Just because you can't, after a few seconds of deliberation, think of
a reason why you might need to accept email from me (or anyone not
using SPF, or anyplace that SPF wrongly blocked) doesn't mean you
won't in future.
You seem to have missed the point of SPF. It *cannot* wrongly block
mail, because any mail it blocks is being sent in contravention of the
sender's domain's policy. Therefore, if it blocks a mail, it is right to
do so.
Pretend you own a business, and don't just use email
for your friends, and you're selling stuff on the internet (widgets
that you sell 1 per week of, each making you $10,000 profit). How
happy are you going to be using SPF to automatically erase incoming
emails from strangers?
If you own that sort of business, you should have your own mail server.
You can then choose whether or not to implement blocking with SPF. Once
SPF (hopefully) becomes widespread, people will have such trouble
sending mail improperly, via non-approved servers, that they *will* all
come into line, and a previously-open method for spamming will have been
blocked.
If you cannot understand why SPF needs to go away ASAP, you should at
least not be helping to spread it around!
Do you really understand the principles behind SPF? This is not mail
blocking with an arbitrary, open-loop set of rules: this is allowing the
recipient to implement a rigid set of rules set by the sender's
domain. So long as the sender follows their domain's rules, SPF won't
get in your way.
--
Mark.
mark(_at_)tranchant(_dot_)plus(_dot_)com
http://tranchant.plus.com/
-------
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?¡
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Rik van Riel
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity.,
Mark Tranchant <=
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Greg Connor
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Andy Lester
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Tim Gladding
- Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Tim Gladding
- Re[4]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Don Andrews
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Rob Kaper
|
Previous by Date: |
Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake |
Next by Date: |
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Alex van den Bogaerdt |
Previous by Thread: |
Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake |
Next by Thread: |
Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|