----- Original Message -----
From: "M Z R" <mzrahman(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Sendmail white paper
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:58:45 -0500 (EST), Stuart D. Gathman
<stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004, Michael Weiner wrote:
Agreed, i have already switched to -all sometime ago. Any
statistics on
~all vs -all, just curious who is publishing with the -all.
About 60% of the SPF records in my cache have "-all". (Earlier it
was 75%).
Thanks for the statistics Roger, looks like the "suggestions" (ala
whitepapers) to NOT publish -all is being heeded :-(
Sadly, yes. I am now forced to reject on softfail by default as a
result.
Today while I was checking some domains' SPF records that my users
always send mails to, I bumped into the following record:
"v=spf1 ~all"
First, I thought this is definitely "wrong". When I tried the
validator at spftools.net, it said:
Record Found: v=spf1 ~all
No Errors
No Warnings
No Notes
Record is clean!
This is completely reasonable for a domain that should not be sending mail,
and which is transitioning to a state in which no mail from that domain is
allowed period but they're not prepared to cut off former domain users who
may still have the domain as their bounce-to address. It's especially
reasonable when de-activating a domain altogether.