Re: @debian.org mail
In this thread I'm speaking as an individual.
Other than approving DSA expendatures related to email, the DPL does not
set Debian's email policy.
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Re: @debian.org mail"):
>> But more than that, you don't need the SPF record. Debian could pay
>> to get on one of the white lists, we could use some services like
>> Amazon SES, we could possibly get a good enough dkim reputation that
>> we don't need to do any of the above.
Ian> Debian should certainly not pay to get on some white list. Nor should
Ian> we use some service whose primary purpose is gatekeeping.
>> My point is that from experience, the SPF record will totally cripple
>> people wanting to use their own infrastructure even worse than we see
>> today.
>>
>> I absolutely agree with the idea of improving Debian's email reputation.
I'd much rather pay money and allow members who do want to use their own
infrastructure to do so rather than set up an SPF record and force
everyone to go through the debian mxes.
I'd prefer to find a way to do none of the above and still get
reasonable email reputation with the large providers.
I think this is a case where serving our users and being practical is
more important than a moralistic stand. If Ian's right that we could
somehow use our political power to make a difference, I'd be open to
considering that.
However, I'll point out that our priorities are our users and free
software.
Preserving the end-to-end principle, preserving the net, etc, are goals
that to a greater or lesser extent many of us may personally agree
with. However, they are not Debian's goals.
When we allow related goals to get in the way of our priorities, we
damage those priorities.
--Sam
Reply to: