On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:49:22PM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Yes, you are. You want "-all" not to be taken to mean "-all" (this IP
address is _certainly_ not allowed to use this domain) but "?all" (this IP
address is _probably_ not allowed to use this domain).
I'll let you review your statement again so you can alter it yourself.
Hint: meaning of ?all
Now:
We are testing. Tests go wrong. Do not reject. Flag only and inform
the sender when appropriate. Rejection is strongly discouraged.
You are simply not listening to what I am saying. :-) All the time in
this thread, I have never suggested that _any_ SPF policy could mean that
the recipient should reject anything. I have talked in categories of "the
No Julian, you are not listening what I am saying.
I am saying that we should say "should NOT block" which is NOT the
opposite of saying "should block".
If you don't understand the difference, spend some more time on it.
You should be smart enough.
If a domain owner publishes "-all", it is everyone's absolute right to
assume that this is what he meant. Otherwise, what "now we can begin
taking SPF records seriously" switch date would you suggest?
IF<<< a domain owner publishes. Yes.
I need not suggest a date to claim right now is not the time.
Yes, you need to, because otherwise you're not being constructive. :-)
I need not be able to swim, in order to see someone is drowning.
I may not have the same opinion as you have, but don't say that
I am not constructive. I make a valid point here.
I estimate we communicate with a very small percentage of those
people. The rest are enemies of SPF for life, because "we" blocked
their email so SPF is bad and they can send to hotmail so microsoft
is good.
SPF does not block mail. MTAs block mail, on orders from real people. I
think most people do understand that (spammers usually don't).
Maybe you should stop thinking about bits and bytes, and start
talking to end users. After all, we're making the infrastucture not
for Julian Mehnle but for the general public.
Alex