-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 June 2004 10:54 am, Andy Bakun wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 12:25, Alan Hodgson wrote:
Unfortunately it is exactly spam in the UCE sense. Your message is no
more or less important in the grand scheme of things than anyone
else's, and no more worthy of cost-shifting receipt. It took me a
while to learn that lesson, but learn it I have.
If the postmaster account is useless now because of changes in the
social nature of the Internet, then it should be removed as a
requirement. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing the postmaster
account is meant for?
Section 4.5.1 of 2821 doesn't mention a suggested usage, but 4.5.5 does,
and referrers to "someone who is able to fix problems". This implies
"reactive" reasons to contact the postmaster. Are there any references
to contacting the postmaster for "proactive" reasons -- my quick search
didn't turn any up.
I do see value in using postmaster as purely a "reactive" system. "Hey,
postmaster, I tried to send an email to you but it is saying "SPF checks
failed: You are not allowed to send email for yourdomain. What the heck
does that mean?"
But sending out a notice to postmaster may not be appropriate.
Perhaps a friendly message to a postmaster is acceptable? "Hey, you've been
sending me about 100 messages a day and they're all being rejected. You
should really publish SPF records because the default SPF record isn't
working for you."
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
Mass Mail Systems Developer, Amazon.com
jonagard(_at_)amazon(_dot_)com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAyf1EBFeYcclU5Q0RAuwGAJ9jjgPRKPprGpUX2KEjijvrVLlnJQCgrnRi
xFCVXSNpzvZyGiPf4njqDhU=
=BmDB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-deployment(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com