-----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 M Z R
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 8:57 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Sendmail white paper
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:44:26 -0500, terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com
<terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Ok, agreed if they are only serving www, but no mails are
originated
from these domains. In that case, these domains should
not have any MX
records published also, isnt it?. And, if you notice, I
mentioned I
Sorry, incorrect. Many web domains, such as some I admin,
all have sales(_at_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_) that get answered.
But the answer gets responded from the sales department of
the corporate entity owning that domain.
Hence the domain receives emails (has MX records) just
never sends outbound email.
Ok, so if a domain sends outbound mails, has MX records and publishes
"v=spf1 ~all", then? It should be a "wrongly published record", right?
I agree with your statement.
However it does not apply to my example. The domain *never* sends emails, just
receives them. (The
recipient of sales(_at_)domain(_dot_)com responds to the lead from
sales(_at_)corp_that_owns_domain(_dot_)com)
We may be arguing the same point :)
If a domain never sends email, I see no reason why it cannot publish "v=spf1
-all"
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily
deactivate your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com