Wayne wrote on June 10, 2005:
<snip>
|Unless you have a time machine and can go back and change
|things in 2003, most of what I remember you suggesting
|simply can not be done. More over, I don't think what you
|suggested would reach a rough consensus on being
|appropriate.
<snip>
Well ... although I respect your view, I strongly disagree
it is the correct approach, especially if you want to move
to standard track with SPFv1.
The ongoing wild west show based on the principle of your
box, your rules, without any filtering framework for
networks means that in the effort to fight spam, phishing,
viruses and worms, email will continue to be highly
unreliable.
A recent study suggests over 50% [1] of a random sampling
of 100 major corporations, not for profits and government
agencies that send requested bulk, transactional and
relationship email are finding their messages are not
making it to the inbox of the person who either requested
or needs to receive the message.
It is the ability to rely on email to deliver requested or
necessary communications that is the ultimate gauge of
the success or failure of this whole exercise.
[1] - This number comes from a study recently released by
Pivotal Veracity, an email deliverability provider.
http://www.pivotalveracity.com
John