Vivien M. wrote:
If that's considered trolling, then this list is going to
turn into a case study in group think where all participants
simply reinforce each other's preconceived pro-SPF views and
every dissident, whether their arguments are valid or not
[...]
will be intimidated and won't speak.
All participants speak only for themselves (with the possible
exceptions of the owner, the moderator, and maybe the future
council). There's no real danger of "group think", quite the
contrary, the council is a desperate attempt to get a minimum
of authoritative leadership back.
Sometimes it turns out that the lone dissident in the room
did have a valid point, and everybody else realized it far
too late.
So far Dave didn't show me a policy where he was restricted in
any way by somebody else. Your example (big ISP publishes a
policy strangling its own users) was more relevant, after all
that's what my ISP did after I asked him to do it... ;-)
But an ISP offering catch-all vanity domains is really forced
to do something. All users have a "secret" alias not affected
by the sender policy. So far nobody ever mentioned this, and I
never needed it.
I'm not going to say all anti-SPF views, including ones I may
have articulated in the past, stand up to critical scrutiny
Not one did, we only found fresh examples where PRA is FUBAR,
and everybody on this list (maybe minus the owner and Phillip)
knows that a PRA evaluation of v=spf1 sender policies is bad.
There's even a public list stating this, you could sign it:
<http://www.OpenSPF.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v103.html>
<http://openspf.org/cgi-bin/openspf_pledge.cgi> (already 83)
Bye, Frank