Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity.

Chris Drake wrote:

> Yes - kindof - I want the "right" to operate an email service that
> exists between senders and recipients.  Anyone who wants the right to
> run their own SMTP server (eg: to avoid ISP mail delays) also fits in
> my category.  We do all have the right+permission to use our
> respective email addresses though.
You have the right and permission to use addresses under domains that 
you own via your own server (or paid-for server service).
Your rights and permissions for using an ISP-provided address are 
dictated by the ISP.
> Sender authentication should be done in the client - not in the ISP.
The disadvantage of doing it that way is wasted bandwidth - the forged 
messages need to be sent to your client.
I do fully agree with you that it would be ideal for your ISP to allow 
you to turn SPF filtering on or off on a per-address basis. If your ISP 
ends up enforcing SPF on all users, find a different ISP that does what 
you want.
Stopping SPF adoption is not the solution to your concerns. SPF is 
clearly a good thing to implement, but it is the flexibility of the 
implementation that will make or break it for you.
--
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?¡