Chris Drake wrote:
Earthlink sounds like they are exceptionally clued-up. A
few innocent bystanders getting inapropriate notices is a
fair and reasonable price to pay for the EXCEPTIONALLY USEFUL
facility to warn senders when emails they've sent might not
get read by the intended recipient.
What are you smoking ?
SPF is not widespread enough yet to adopt
Whatever it is, it's probably illegal.
Earthlink are doing anythng except the right and honorable
thing in this situation.
Selling the stolen bandwidth, time, and disk space of innocent
bystanders is "right and honourable", thanks for this opinion,
but I must admit that this comes as a surprise for me.
This is an SPF mailling list. We all know what SPF is for
One of my "favourite" scripts is a one-liner, I use it daily
in about ten SpamCop reports resp. as subject of complaints:
[spf.cmd]
| @echo Erroneous spam bounce resp. challenge - please use SPF
| to identify forged addresses|clipbrd