spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Apache Foundation and SenderID

2004-09-03 14:14:43
Meng Weng Wong wrote:

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 01:38:48PM -0400, guy wrote:
| | 2. SPF records are optional. This is crazy. Maybe for now, but again, by
| say 2006 SPF should be required.  MX records are required (I think) to
| receive email.  So there is nothing wrong with having a requirement to send
| email.  Sure, not today, but sometime in the future.  Also, the SPF record
| should become a new record type, and stop using the TXT record at some pint
| in time.  After all, most domains never process email.
|
perhaps we can say "after X date, in the absence of an SPF
record, we will assume a/24 mx/24 ptr -all"

Yes, but X date = when AOL starts bouncing all messages from domains which do not have SPF records and I will bet that will be about November 1st, not January 1st. And it is fine with me if they do and I'll be able to start doing the same 'safely' then by January 1st. This really is just the next step beyond checking for reverse DNS. That is not a hard set 'rule', but one that is adopted by most major players and has been good IMO.

Now, let me say I have no love for AOL and in fact am hating them more here lately. But, the main reason I hate them lately is because as a host who forwards many of our domains' emails to their ISP, of which yes, some are AOL users, we wind up landing on a blacklist with at least one of our mailservers about once every 6 weeks. It's a PITA! And it's because they look at all the headers and all the domains listed in those headers when making spam judgements. I see SPF and SRS as a method to allow ISPs such as AOL, to fix their poor filters. So, bring it on!!! Please!!! And you can be certain the ax will fall hard from AOL as their users are tired of spam and AOL is tired of the wasted bandwidth, processing power and storage of spam and overly complex spam filtering.

A bit off thread here.... but lets please NOT use Sender ID. If it carries a M$ license I don't think it will ever be included in any 'Nix distros (can you say FPSEs?). I have plenty to do without having to deal with rolling my own each time an update is needed.

My vote is to follow our own path and not allow the use of any corporate 'licensing' in any of the SPF products.

Best,
John Hinton


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>