James,
I just _love_ responding to your messages. :-)
James Couzens [jcouzens(_at_)6o4(_dot_)ca] wrote:
You've got 20 of the most enjoyable users on earth. [...]
And they are intelligent too.
I know. That still doesn't invalidate my point of view.
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.
Then you are being a tad ignorant.
No, I'm not. Very much unlike _you_, _I_ don't consider other people's
points of view invalid just because their circumstances don't apply to me.
There are big ISPs like AOL, and there are small ISPs like me, and they
work under different conditions as you correctly noticed. But that
doesn't mean that either one of them is wrong when doing things
differently.
But think about it. In my particular case, I represent 30,000
mailboxes. You represent 20. Who's opinion as to the value of
publishing '-all' do you think carries more weight?
[...]
Just because you don't like the inferred meaning of my statement,
doesn't mean you have to go and and get all personally offended on this
list. Remove the emotional reading of my message
If you don't want your messages to undergo "emotional reading", you'd best
not put offending statements like "All the wrong people are giving all the
wrong advice" or "you [...] is like little boy in kiddie's pool [...]" in
them. I know this is your style, but don't be surprised if people feel
offended by it.
and view it from a purely technical standpoint and its probably a lot
more palatable. In all fairness, you with 20 users, recommending that
people should publish -all is like little boy in a kiddie's pool
recommending to the Captain of the Titanic that its smooth sailing on
all the 7 seas and he should leave port post haste.
You are confusing things. First, no one except you in this thread has
been talking about whether publishing "-all" is a good idea. What people
have been talking about is whether rejecting messages on SPF "fail"
results is practicable.
Second, neither Terry Fielder (to whom you replied) nor Mark Shewmaker (to
whom Terry replied) work for AOL or a similarly big ISP as far as I can
see, and if they and I think that outright rejecting messages on SPF
"fail" results is acceptable for us, who are you to come around and tell
us that what we do is wrong even though it is acceptable for our users?
(I am not going to discuss anything above this line any further.)
And I stick to it: rejecting messages on SPF "fail" results is a feasible
practice _right now_, not depending on ISP size, but mostly depending on
technical implementation and user education (the latter not necessarily
being an issue for big ISPs if done properly).
Julian.