-----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 David
Woodhouse
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 12:05 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] SPF Stats
In the meantime, some senders continue to publish SPF records with
'-all' and say "you should trust the recipients not to honour SPF if
there's a forwarding problem", while some recipients continue to reject
for a 'fail' result and say "but I'm just doing what the sender said".
And genuine mail continues to go missing for these people.
I suppose if missing means not delivered, that's true. If missing means
something like lost, I don't see it. I've had a -all record for about a
year now and have not seen any significant negative impact.
I've gotten an handful of SMTP rejections. After those I knew the message
was undelivered (nothing was missing by any usual definition of the word)
and I was able to deal with it.
Anyone particularly worried about this edge case (and in my experience,
which may not be typical it's a very small one) can add
?include:spf.trusted-forwarder.org to their SPF record and avoid forwarding
related failurs for a large fraction of the mail forwarders out there.
Some senders may, "publish SPF records with '-all' and say 'you should trust
the recipients not to honour SPF if there's a forwarding problem'". I
understand that there are edge cases where SPF doesn't work and I'll deal
with the consequences. Feel free to reject failures from my domain. I'll
work with it. I think the benifits are worth the minor inconvenience
associated with these edge cases.
Note that I'm saying it works for me, not that AOL or Verizon or anyone else
should immediately switch to -all.
Scott K