-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Michael Deutschmann wrote:
That said, I believe making reject-on-SPF-fail a MUST is a bad idea,
[...] And recipients who have whitelisted all forwarders are very
interested to make that distinction.
How can a recipient whitelist all forwarders? That seems a daunting
task, and requiring it may hinder setting up new mail servers.
Having shared lists of "reputable" forwarders available on the web has
the same limitations of DNSBLs, that SPF was supposed to overcome.
Forwarder whitelisting is supposed to be a local and subjective thing, not
a global undertaking. You're absolutely right that the latter wouldn't
work.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHhS/lwL7PKlBZWjsRAkXEAKDEhbWCMrsuG4tu0BuO8ss7tbjLVACgine3
IjV/m5B6wavz6foR9emA93I=
=eOKr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
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=83929811-39a2af
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com