On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 09:07:25AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 03:53 +0100, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
Would anyone know why google would say the following?
<quote class="wrong">Publishing an SPF record that lacks
include:aspmx.googlemail.com or specifying -all instead of ~all may
result in delivery problems.</quote>
Note: they say "~all" is good, "-all" is not.
They would say it because they believe, like many others, that the
fundamental principle on which SPF is based -- that forwarding does not
happen -- is completely wrong. And thus that publishing a '-all' record
invites people to throw away genuine mail. For the normal definition of
'genuine', that is, not the SPF NewSpeak definition.
I'm not going to rehash that argument.
I know what you think of SPF, and you know what I think of you. What wonders me
is why you keep spreading your FUD if you are so opposed to SPF.
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=78373013-82a861
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com