Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity.
2004-01-13 11:59:31
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:43:44PM +1100, Chris Drake wrote:
| You're only making SPF look more silly with your remarks. "If you own
| that sort of business, you should have your own mail server." Great.
| So SPF means that you're going to force everyone who runs a business
| to own their own domain, their own mail server, their own permanent
| internet connection, and their own DNS? Bzzt. real rude.
They don't need to have their own mail servers. Guess what. *YOU* can
provide that service for them. Bzzt. Wake up. There's a new business
model waiting for *YOU* to make money with by providing mail server
services for business that cannot afford to lose any mail whatsoever.
Your mail servers accept the mail (my guess is you will choose not to
use SPF at all) for your customers, and your customers then pick up
the mail via IMAPS (that's IMAP using TLS/SSL security). The ones that
don't need to run a mail server are small businesses that are going to
typically be using Outlook or something similar to read mail, and those
already handle this.
| Has anyone done a survey? How much legitimate email comes via a path
| other than the ISPs SMTP server? If nobody has done any such
| investigation, SPF should be shelved until this negative impact can be
| assessed!!!
There are business opportunities for YOU to make money in this change.
Stop whining and go get rich!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
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
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Wechsler
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: implementation question, Kelson Vibber |
Next by Date: |
RE: Re[5]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Thomas R. Stephenson |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Andy Lester |
Next by Thread: |
Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Tim Gladding |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|