spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: Draft ammendments on DNS lookup limits

2005-03-20 21:34:41


Frank Ellermann wrote:

Radu Hociung wrote:

There it is!

No, it's not "there".  I clearly said that I was talking about
one of their MSAs, and that was the stupid user MSA.  They have
_many_ more MSAs, some of them allowing any MAIL FROM you like.

No mailers of theirs should appear in anyone's SPF records.

This is completely wrong.  With some very minor adjustments on
my side like buying a DynDNS custom domain I could use their
mailouts in a sender policy in less than "5 minutes" - it only
depends on my PayPal account if the "5 minutes" would turn out
to be 3 days, but as a programmer you know what "5 minutes" is.

Period!

Indeed.

Perhaps you speak of "T-Online France - Club Internet".

I'm not interested in the details of T-online International,
It was only an _example_ for a huge ISP, because I happen to
know more about T-Online than say RR, Wanadoo, UOL, Earthlink,
MSN, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc.

Perhaps the German branch of T-Online will also publish,
like their subsidiaries do.

Perhaps.  Or they decide that support issues with 8 million
German customers are not exactly the same as a few thousands
in France.  Tiscali.de published SPF right from the beginning,
before claranet.de.  The last time I checked it no other part
of Tiscali or clara.net did this.  The mail infrastructure of
claranet.de is completely different from say Clara UK.

"Another" is not an ISP. Give me a name, not hand-waving.

You propose to introduce changes in v=spf1, so you have to
show that it's compatible with the installed base.  So far we
only found that spf-classic-00 managed it to kill the policies
of Scott, Meng, and the old RR policy.  Your overall limit 10
is almost always _more_ restrictive than Wayne's 3*10 limits.

That's a fact and no hand-waving, unless you need your fingers
to count to ten.

RR is willing to change, in fact they came to us. I think
that shows more than just willingness to make it work. I
would not be surprised to see the same willingness from
others.

The problem is not the willingness to optimize policies, but a
PermError caused by a MUST.  Scott _cannot_ change his policy,
it's probably perfect as it is.  Pobox users with a per-user
policy _cannot_ change the overall pobox policy, only Meng can
do this.  SPF should and did work for these users even before
some included 3rd parties decide to optimize their policies.

So far nobody supported your proposal of an overall limit 10,
you should either improve it drastically, or forget it.  Bye.

Getting below 10 would be a good target, but clearly not a requirement because it is not always possible. Get over it please Radu.

Terry

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper!  http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com


--
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper!  http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com