Scott Kitterman wrote:
-----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 johnp
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 12:06 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters
wayne wrote:
In <NGBBLEIJOEEEBMEIAPBKCEDEIMAA(_dot_)scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> Scott
Kitterman <spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> writes:
-----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 wayne
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 10:36 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Needed spf.pobox.com change - Attn webmasters
In <x4r7d6sd0k(_dot_)fsf(_at_)footbone(_dot_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wayne
<wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> writes:
I have updated the "contact us" web page.
It no longer has a "service"/"Interested In:" field and the
"other"/"Details" field has been renamed to be "Message".
I changed my mind. The "service" field has been restored under the
name of "Subject".
Thanks. It might be helpful to mark the fields that are mandatory.
Ok, I put a star by the required fields. I have also made it so that
your input isn't lost if you hit submit and the message doesn't get
sent.
It'd be worth putting an MX check on the entered e-mail too.
There's a balance here. So far the spam isn't to bad and many of the people
who end up there looking for help are there because they have badly
configured e-mail systems. I'd suggest not adding more checks unless the
spam gets out of control.
Good point and I agree, but we could put an MX check in there and flag the problem to the
user and include it in the request to RT.
Slainte,
JohnP