-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 02:00:02PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
None of the reasons you have or could have given can negate my point,
ever. He who uses "?" in his SPF record doesn't care _enough_ about
his domain not being abused, because that way one will never be able
to detect all forgeries with certainty. Of course there may be valid
reasons to accept this issue. It is a matter of weighing the
advantages and disadvantages.
He who uses any SPF record cares enough about his domain to setup
a record. Using "?" does not imply he's lazy, uninterested or
<insert any other negative word here>.
Nowhere did I say that. It simply implies that he did not try as hard as
possible to lock down his e-mail pathways. I'll leave it to reputation
providers to judge that fact.
(It may be worth noting that I do _not_ reject on Neutral, just on {Fail,
SoftFail, TempError, PermError}.)
This is a valid policy [...]
Sure it is. I have just explained the consequences of using "?", nothing
more.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCigz/wL7PKlBZWjsRAvLhAJ9+va51rPnGHpiS/nWG8IBcVVsO5wCg+bwQ
2qnn74Bhc3a5u+25KOI08D8=
=9t8z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----