spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Please stop publishing -all it is NOT time yet

2004-06-14 11:50:49
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:40:14AM -0500, wayne wrote:
I think this is a very bad idea.  It is *very* important for domain
owners to be able to test the waters by publishing an SPF record with
?all without fear that they will be treated any differently than if
they didn't publish SPF records at all.  Unless you are willing to
reject on "none" also, you shouldn't reject on "neutral" or "unknown".

Hmm, but some argue a ?all or ~all result helps their spamfilters later
on. So if something is wrong on the publishing end, they'll always run
the risk some statistical virus filter later on has seen a high correlation 
between spam and softfail in the headers... Or am I way off now?

Koen

-- 
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Send us money!  http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com

Attachment: pgpGvSYN3h1hY.pgp
Description: PGP signature