-----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
Jonathan Gardner
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:02 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Please Don't Reject SPF NEUTRAL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 23 September 2004 06:36 pm, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Right. But getting stuck on a RHSBL would be much worse. It wouldn't
matter what MSA you used. Your mail would still be blocked. Today at
least you can switch to a backup MSA from a different IP.
Isn't this the point? We don't want the spammers and email abusers to be
part of the system anymore. If you abuse email resources, you are
done with
email. That's what accountability is about.
And even if they get cut out of the email system, they still have the
telephone. If someone isn't getting their legitimate mail, they can call
the recipient or even send them a piece of snail mail.
Yes. It is both the point and the danger. It is the point against the
spammers and the risk that you take when you publish SPF records. It is a
risk worth taking in the service of the overall goal of making our
collective lives better. It is also a reason to be very careful about what
mechanisms give a PASS result.
For those of you with control over your own MTAs, this isn't hard. For
those of use stuck with commercially provided shared MTA services, one needs
to tread very carefully until technical mechanisms to prevent cross-customer
forgery on the shared MTA are in place. My fundamental point is that even
if I get off the blacklist, it's probably already been an business disaster
for me. For a one person consulting business, reputation is very important,
having to call a customer and tell them I can't e-mail them because of [fill
in the blank, it just doesn't matter] is going to hurt.
Scott Kitterman