On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 ck(_at_)kuckuk(_dot_)com wrote:
I think agreement can be reached in the cases where
- companies tell their employees which SMTP server to use
What about large corporations where the company does not tell the
employees what SMP server to use?
All the companies I know want to have tight control over the e-mail
that is sent or received by their employees, and they mandate using
specific software (Notes, Groupwise, etc) and sending and receiving
all their e-mail via central servers. Home office workers usually
connect via VPN to their company's networks. So I don't see any
problems here except for big corporations who are just getting their
feet wet with Internet technology.
Certain companies (banks, etc.) also are required to archive all
e-mail traffic, so they have no choice here.
Indeed. Where I work, I block all smtp at the firewalls; only the
designated mail relays are allowed to send SMTP. We have spent
significant effort to stop unauthorized mail since it is a legal and
regulatory problem.
I'm actually thinking of using internal SPF records to improve the
tracking and tracibility of internal relaying and provide another layer
of "protection" (not quite the right word for it, but anyway.) Once we
have sendmail and/or MailScanner SPF patches I feel comfortable with, that
is.
I'm all for SPF on my internet-bound email as well; I have SPF records in
place and am working on a policy that spells out the SMTP restrictions for
our users.
--
#!/jameel/akari
sleep 4800;
make clean && make breakfast
-------
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
Wiki:
http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/HomePage
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡