-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Please continue this discussion on spf-discuss. It is off-topic on
srs-discuss.
David Woodhouse wrote:
To be honest, I wouldn't bother. Although many people _publish_ SPF
records, and all the graphs of adoption will show this figure,
relatively few people are actually rejecting mail due to SPF failure.
"Relatively few people" -- so exactly how did you figure this out? Any
meaningful statistics?
BTW, there are people who use SPF to ensure that they send bounces only to
SPF-verified (i.e. SPF "Pass") sender addresses.
If any sites _are_ rejecting the mail which you forward, simply advise
them to stop using SPF. Refer them to something like
http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html or something similar.
You forgot the <plug type="shameless"> tags.
Whenever I've found a site rejecting the mail which I forward, they've
disabled their SPF checking as soon as I've actually explained how it
'works'.
I don't forward mail without rewriting the sender, ergo I don't have your
problem. Lucky me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDhQcxwL7PKlBZWjsRAl4wAJ9yuu4W0Kos+X1zSvTQUhiD9GmMOQCgkyKP
fLxtokK+IK1/K880FuUT7tg=
=clLX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com