-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Meng
Weng Wong
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:52 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Possible New Mechanism Prefix
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:00:42AM -0400, spf(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com wrote:
| Yes, I'm thinking of changing my record to add the ? in from of all the
| mechanisms. My suggestion here is to add a level of nuance so
that those of
| us reliant on shared MTAs can assert something beyond neutral
without fear.
I guess the best recommendation I can give is that if you're
not happy about sharing an MTA, you might want to get your
own unshared MTA.
In the same way, there are problems with sharing a house,
which is why people who get fed up with their roommates
eventually get their own place.
Getting my own MTA isn't in the cards. Unlike most of the people (I gather)
participating here, I'm not an e-mail/internet professional. They are tools
I use to do my job.
Given the current design, you are certainly right. I'm actually reasonably
comfortable with at least some of my neighbors. As long as people remember
that SPF Pass != not a forgery, then I should be OK. I would, however,
think that those who do control their MTA would like to be able to have a
way to say something stronger.
Clearly this isn't an SPFv1 question. It's deployed without this nuance and
it isn't worth breaking the current code over it. I think it might be
useful for SPFv2 or MARID1 or whatever comes next. Please keep it in mind.
Scott K