On Saturday 12 Jun 2004 10:14, Koen Martens wrote:
Actually, wouldn't it be enough to have DNS-providers that support spf?
I mean you wouldn't have to move your hosting elsewhere, you only need
to transfer your domain to the other dns-provider.
Ah, would be nice if the hosting company let you move your DNS elsewhere, but
the usual deal is that they completely control your DNS and you're not
allowed to move it elsewhere. Some give you a basic web interface to modify
the DNS, but very few of these web interfaces include the ability to add TXT
records.
I should know better, I know, and I could move elsewhere, but I was just
making the point that there are lots of little companies (I think the yanks
call them mom-and-pop outfits) who have set up small domains to give their
organisations a web presence, and they use these sorts of shared hosting
services for $10-$100 a month. They don't control their own DNS, they just
know they have a webpage listing their opening hours, street address and a
catalog, they take a few credit card sales, and they can easily send and
receive their company email - these are valid web users but it's no good
expecting them to learn about SPF (at least until they get seriously
joe-jobbed), or telling them they MUST implement SPF at a particular date.
The people we have to convince are the hosting providers, and the way to
convince them is to point out the bandwidth they could save by a reduction in
bounces due to joe-jobs on the thousands of little domains they service, and
then hope that "SPF Support" becomes a headline "tick-in-the-box" feature.
I'm not saying they're not listening, but equally I don't see any of them
boasting about SPF "coming soon" yet... even when I ask them for it. If
10,000 small domains asked for it, they might suddenly implement it, but
10,000 small domains don't know about SPF.
Cheers
--
Tim