On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Andy Bakun wrote:
Yes, I would like to think so. My point, admittedly in a somewhat harsh
and 'round-about way, was that if someone is going to post an SPF
record, they should make sure it accurately reflects their setup. Part
of the problem SPF has had since day one is the perception that the
party checking and enforcing SPF records is the one at fault when a
reject occurs -- this is incorrect, even if one could argue that it is
different than how things were done in the past. If a reject occurs,
baring issues with the implementation of the various SPF MTA plugins, it
is not something that the party who is checking needs to fix, but rather
something that the sending/forwarding party/parties need to resolve.
This is why SPF on outgoing mail should be more prevalent. It nips
sender configuration and SPF errors in the bud.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.