-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Julian
Mehnle
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 7:29 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm
error = Message should be rejected?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the late reply. This is my view on this issue:
snip
Re scaring off first-time deployers: I seriously doubt that any serious
admin is going to be scared off by e-mail not getting delivered and error
messages being generated due to him having configured a broken SPF
record.
Admins will recognize that their problem is caused by their own fault, not
by a misdesigned SPF. Don't take people for more simple-minded than they
really are.
I'm actually not so worried about the serious admins. I'm worried about their
bosses. The first time someone high up in an organization has a message
rejected because of a syntax error may be the end of SPF in that organization.
I think that worrying about simple-minded management is entirely reasonable.
I'm also worried about the non-serious admins. You wouldn't believe some of
the gyrations we go through on spf-help and in responding to the submission at
spf.pobox.com. There are lots of non-serious admins out there trying to deal
with SPF.
Scott Kitterman