Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?
2007-12-21 15:07:03
On 21-Dec-07, at 4:23 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
This is how SMTP has worked since the early 1980s, and still works
today. If you choose to believe that by continuing to be compatible
with
how email has worked for over two decades I am 'doing the damage',
then
so be it.
If you use -all, there are situations in which your mail will be
thrown
away. If you reject for failure, there are situations in which you
will
be throwing away genuine mail, forwarded through normal, SMTP-
compatible
systems.
David,
You keep harping on the fact that SMTP has been working the way it
has for 20 years and to change any facet of it that has the potential
to throw away what is allegedly good email should be done away with.
The fact of the matter is that when SMTP was developed 20 or so years
ago we didn't have the problems of forgery that we do today. We also
didn't have the problem of malware and junk mail either. Do you
advocate that the inclusion of tools like Spamassassin and ClamAV in
the email process should be discarded as well?
On my system, that does check for SPF, Spamassassin and ClamAV are
responsible for more ligitimate email be discarded than SPF is. As a
matter of fact SPF has never rejected a legitimate email, ever!
David, I'm afraid your living in denial if you think that any changes
in the SMTP protocol that requires a change in our own behaviour and
expectations are unacceptable and not to be tolerated. You have a
choice. You can either change your expectations and behaviour or
accept the fact that your email will soon be accepted by fewer and
fewer email servers. Since that's the case, you may as well give up
now and find yourself a cave in that desert to crawl into now.
--
Gino Cerullo
Pixel Point Studios
21 Chesham Drive
Toronto, ON M3M 1W6
416-247-7740
-------------------------------------------
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=78638857-e99dbf
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, (continued)
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, Alex van den Bogaerdt
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, David Woodhouse
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, Alex van den Bogaerdt
- [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, Julian Mehnle
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, Bill Adragna
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, Alex van den Bogaerdt
- [spf-discuss] Re: Re: advice wrong, or is it?, Frank Ellermann
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?,
Gino Cerullo <=
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, WebMaster
- [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, Julian Mehnle
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: advice wrong, or is it?, David MacQuigg
- [spf-discuss] Google's SPF Record, David MacQuigg
- [spf-discuss] Re: Google's SPF Record, Frank Ellermann
- [spf-discuss] Re: Google's SPF Record, Julian Mehnle
- [spf-discuss] Re: Google's SPF Record, Frank Ellermann
- [spf-discuss] Re: Google's SPF Record, Julian Mehnle
- [spf-discuss] Google NOT rejecting on SPF Fail., Julian Mehnle
- [spf-discuss] Re: Google NOT rejecting on SPF Fail., Frank Ellermann
|
|
|