On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
No one should avoid publishing "-all" because there are clueless receivers.
How about clueless forwarders?
Receivers choose their (legitimate) forwarders, so a clueless forwarder
is still a clueless receiver. (A receiver with a clue would certainly
*not* want email "forwarded" by random MTAs that they did not request to
do so.) If a receiver is forced to deal with a badly configured forwarder,
then a simple whitelist accomodates that without causing problems with SPF.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
[http://www.listbox.com/member/]
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/2183229-668e5d0d
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=2183229-a7234b15
Unsubscribe Now:
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=2183229-98aa0fe6&post_id=20110204104527:DF836A5A-3075-11E0-8801-BC9EF559ED1D
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com