Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity.

Hi Dan,

DSN is claimed to "break" if you muck up the envelope (and the
standard "requires" DSN's to go back to the envelope, not the "From:")
but I've not experimented with this, so I'll see how often this really
is true - the rest of your comments are true, and have placated me
somewhat - at least I will know when my mails get rejected, unlike 99%
of existing anti-spam weaponry... err... surgery.

Kind Regards,
Chris Drake


Wednesday, January 14, 2004, 12:01:36 AM, you wrote:

DB> On Tuesday 13 January 2004 12:38 pm, Chris Drake wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > No - you misunderstand - the recipient ISP follows the policy of the
> > ISP identified in the envelope; this is not me (and it may or may not
> > even be my own ISP), and they may or (usually) may not list me in
> > their SPF system (especially not as I run my own outgoing mail server,
> > but I digress).
DB> You are correct, this part is not fully backward-compatible with SMTP. Are 
you 
DB> not able to put your own domain in the return-path? It generally will not 
DB> affect the user experience, since MUA's display the header 'from' field to 
DB> the user, not the return-path.

> > It is not "I" who block mail from others - its my ISP - and it is
> > beyond my control whether or not they do this, which is why I hate SPF
> > so much!  I cannot afford ever to loose even just 1 email.  Why is
> > this so hard for everyone to understand?
DB> Your ISP can choose how or whether to implement it. 

DB> If they do not implement it at all, your mail will be unaffected. There is 
no 
DB> peer-pressure to adopt SPF at your MTA, though there will most likely be 
peer 
DB> pressure to publish SPF records.

DB> Your ISP can implement it in such a way as to switch it on or off per 
mailbox, 
DB> if that is their wish. 

DB> If they do not implement it in a manner which satisfies you, your problem 
is 
DB> with them, not SPF.

> > I can NEVER afford for my sent emails to get trashed without my
> > knowledge.
DB> Neither can I, and I look forward to a world in which such things stop 
DB> happening. SPF is the way to get there.

> > My remarks are not foolish - your assumption that everyone runs their
> > own mail server and therefore can easily add SPF records, and can
> > easily get all recipients to add SPF records for them is the foolish
> > remark here!
DB> Recipients and mail servers do not publish SPF records. Only domain owners 
do. 

DB> It is not unreasonable to expect domain owners to be able to publish DNS 
DB> records.

DB> If SPF records are not published, it is not the end of the world. Receiving 
DB> MTA's should simply fall back to their current (non-SPF) behaviour.

DB> - Dan

DB> -------
DB> Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
DB> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
DB> Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
DB> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
DB> please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡

-------
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?¡