spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Handling of -all

2005-02-14 16:02:31
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 05:18:34PM -0500, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:

I know.  My point is that the one protecting his mail with -all
still suffers in the case where old-style forwarders are involved.
Read again if you didn't get this.

I disagree.  If the recipient does not check SPF, then it doesn't matter
what is in the SPF record.  On the other hand, if the recipient *does* check
SPF, but fails to account for any old-style forwarders they have set up, then
their mail configuration is broken.  This is not a reason to stop publishing
-all.  There are thousands of ways to screw up your mail configuration that do
not involve SPF - and I've seen a good portion of them.

I would simply warn people that are *checking* SPF that if they use
forwarders, they need to check whether they are SPF compliant, and
configure for them (or stop using them) if not.

Yes Stuart, but if you publish -all, and if I write a message
using your name, who gets the bounce ?!?

The point I make is that your expectations about "-all" may
be too high.  I'm talking publisher side here, not sender nor
receiver side.

Alex


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>