spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re[2]: [spf-discuss] C/R Pros and Cons

2008-10-14 22:11:27
Been  there. Done that. Lots of ISPs like AOL do it. Just include an
URL on the first line.

I  question  anyone's  desire  to join the ranks of AOL's mail team --
famously  non-responsive  and  frustrating  to  real  mail  admins and
useless to end users experiencing protocol-level problems.

Anyway,  you  know we don't control the "first line" of a DSN. Are you
only considering the fantasy DSN that will exist after we overhaul the
SMTP  protocol  to  put  calmer language first? No MTA will ever print
your "No, no, we still want your mail message if you go to our website
first"  message  BEFORE  they  print  "Permanent failure. Your message
could  not  be  delivered."  That  is what a 5xx code means, and every
2821-compliant MTA is completely correct in being as firm as they want
in  stating  the  message could not, would not, be accepted. You can't
arbitrarily  decide  that  some  5xx codes are merely advisory. No MTA
vendor will, or should, listen.

Maybe  if  you wrote an SMTP extension RFC and tried to go through the
actual process. But you can see how easy that was for SPF. And all for
the hacked-together concept of HTTP-before-SMTP? Please.

The  web page (customized by a transaction id parameter) has lots of
information.  If  the MTA reports the reject in a DSN to the sender,
it is even clickable in most email clients.

As  you  know,  real-world  experience proves over and over again that
users  will not read and follow "lots of information" in a DSN. We are
talking  about  humans who have plenty of other things to do -- *zero*
of  their  responsibilities  are  technical,  and  they  are  not your
children  or parents. Experienced admins know that users will call the
help  desk  when  they  get a DSN that clearly states "The recipient's
mailbox  is full": "Is this on our end or theirs?" they'll ask. When a
DSN  says  "The  recipient domain misspelled.com does not exist", they
call and say "Our website is down."

And  the  protocol-level  C/R  concept suggests adding to this support
burden an additional PERMANENT FAILURE that, well, isn't reeeeeeally a
failure.  "Permanent failure. No, temporary failure. No, um, permanent
for  now, but not the next one. Well, unless your company has outbound
gateways  on  multiple  networks and the next one comes from somewhere
else." Epic fail.

Since  I  pay  to  receive the mail, and it's my domain, I'll reject
anyone  I  like, thank you very much. You are thinking in terms of a
large free email provider like gmail.

Look, the tough-guy domain admin thing is itself a marker of FUSSP and
pretty  boring.  Nobody cares what you do with your personal domain. I
refer  to any messaging system whose users have the ability to get you
removed  from your job. There are outliers, of course, companies whose
users  inexplicably  kowtow to the lab rat attitudes and condescension
of  their  IT  staff, and these places may be happy to implement ideas
like  5xx  C/R.  Otherwise,  it  is  the  stuff  of  home networks and
family-name domains.

Spam may eventually drive large email providers out of business.

I  am  sure  people are not champing at the bit for a hobbyist hosting
provider using draconian C/R. I certainly do not think that Earthlink,
C/R "pioneers", have nabbed a net increase from GMail or Yahoo lately.

--Sandy





-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com