James Couzens wrote:
Your post is far more inflammatory than Chris's was. You appear to
either be under stress, or are taking his e-mail too personally...
You are right, I apologize for flying off the handle. Probably a combination of
one too many late hours working on various SPF projects and one too many
postings by people who have done nothing complaining about people who have done
something (mainly the IETF-MXCOMP mailing list). Although my own contributions
to SPF have been less than spectacular, I know how much hard work goes into all
of this.
Michael R. Brumm wrote:
instead of just sending a friendly notice to the domain owner using whois.
James Couzens wrote:
If you didn't notice, the content of his post was such that he was
UNABLE to send EMAIL to the OWNER of that domain.
No, he only tried to contact the "webmaster(_at_)libspf2(_dot_)org" (not the
domain owner) before making his statements. The domain owner's e-mail address
is clearly listed in both whois and the SOA record for the domain. That address
was working fine.
James Couzens wrote:
You know Michael, I seem to have done all of the above [edit: ...] without
ever[] leaving my MTA [in]capable of delivering mail properly.
The problem was not a misconfiguration of an MTA, but that during the period of
transition, the libspf2.org domain had no MTA. It was not completely configured
(no MX) and no MTA was responsible for the domain at all (although the web
server pointed to by the A record was automatically targeted for the e-mail).
Sorry for the outburst,
Michael R. Brumm