Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity.
2004-01-13 12:19:55
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:09:37AM +1100, 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.
If the recipients, who are your customers, chose to block your mail by
using SPF incorrectly, then why are you not blaming them? Maybe you
should be giving them (and their ISP) advice on how to correctly deploy
SPF so that YOUR mail is not deflected.
| Sender authentication should be done in the client - not in the ISP.
As an operator of a mail server which sees more than half of the mail being
spam, I totally disagree. My competitors are saving money by taking strong
and effective measure to stop spam from impacting the services they offer.
So I need to do the same because my customers do not want to pay higher
prices because I queue all the spam for them, and they do not want to have
longer download times because of all the spam, many of which are very very
large, that their client has to reject. My customers don't want it to come
their way at all.
So the ISP is the best place to stop the spam. And not only that, it is
better to stop the spam even before the DATA part is delivered, to keep
the bandwidth costs down. In a few cases, I've even had to block some
abusers via ACLs in the router.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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>
|
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., (continued)
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Alex van den Bogaerdt
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Rik van Riel
- Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Mark Tranchant
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Anthony Howe
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Alex van den Bogaerdt
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity.,
Phil Howard <=
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Matt Perry
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Anthony Howe
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard |
Next by Date: |
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Alex van den Bogaerdt |
Next by Thread: |
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|