blues(_at_)bluesong(_dot_)com wrote:
Point taken. Part of my point was that domain owners often are not in
control of the servers where their domain resides. Unless I have totally
missed the point (and because I'm still getting up to speed on SPF, maybe I
have), that leaves the domain owner at the mercy of the host. I know the
practical advice is to move my domains to a host that will support SPF and
be responsive to domain owners, and in time I will, but the fact remains
that I cannot force compliance. So while separating the protocol from the
application of that protocol is fair, it doesn't change the real-world
effect.
True, and it is unfortunate that despite our efforts to prevent
situations as these it still happens. Note that for example we have
a FAQ entry for ISP's and such:
http://new.openspf.org/FAQ/Hints_for_ISPs.
I repeat my point, if your domain hoster goes ahead and puts an SPF
record on the domain without any notification to you or without any
chance for you to influence the content of that SPF record, the
domain hoster is bad, very bad. If you are not into DNS, SPF and
stuff like that enough to do things yourself, you should be able to
trust that your domain hoster does not do things which might affect
your cyber-presence negatively. You are basically at their mercy (as
you are anytime you ask someone else to handle stuff for you, that
is why i usually do stuff myself :))
Gr,
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
-------
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