James Couzens [jcouzens(_at_)6o4(_dot_)ca] wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 23:41 +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Pardon me, I have also been rejecting mail based on SPF "fail"
results for about half a year now, and I have not encountered any
false positives I could not tolerate. In fact, I have had almost no
false positives at all.
How many users do you have? Do they get angry when they don't get mail?
About 20 -- so, no, I'm not a big ESP. And, no, they do _not_ get angry
when they don't get mail if it happens due to the anti-abuse measures I
take. They actually trust in my anti-abuse strategy as that is one of the
main features of the service I offer them.
They are also able to look up what messages directed to them have been
rejected by the mail server:
http://julian.io.link-m.de/misc/rejected-messages
(anonymized sample)
Moreover, my users are able to white-list their forwarders from SPF
checking, which eliminates the largest part of SPF false positives. So
what's your point?
All the wrong people are giving all the wrong advice. What I find
troubling most are that the people giving advice in here for the most
part have absolutely no experience from a decently sized ISP's
perspective, or anyone with customers. I'm not pointing the finger
directly at you, since I do not know the scope of your employment nor
your network, but I would like to hear.
Of course you are pointing the finger directly at me, why else would you
have told me something like "All the wrong people are giving all the wrong
advice"?
I'm not willing to accept the notion that anyone who does not have at
least a thousand users belongs to "the wrong people" and is automatically
"giving all the wrong advice". I know the big corporations are calling
the shots these days, but that doesn't mean everyone else's point of view
is invalid.
Especially when non-fundamentalist people like me actually _do_ the right
thing. Or what part of my setup don't you like?
This "I answer to more users than you, so I am right" attitude stinks.