[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: the SPF effects on mail SENT TO @d.o

>>>>> "Humberto" == Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:

    Humberto> Poor guy, :-), John, your thread seemed to gone mad
    Humberto> already. Why don't you start over, with a better subject? How
    Humberto> can (legit) mail sent *to* @d.o get lost due to SPF/other mail
    Humberto> filtering?

Unluckily, the thread started by John is not a "thread gone mad", or at
least I don't think it is.  The underlying views can be summarized as one of

  a. SPF is a bloodily stupid idea that adds to user inconvenience without
     much gain to the net as whole.  So to prevent SPF from gaining grounds,
     Debian should actively not implement anything to make sure mails from
     SPF enabled sites to actually get delivered.  Then users of SPF will
     one day understand how stupid SPF actually is.

  b. SPF is a good idea, and Debian should support it even when very few
     others are using SPF.  So it really should implement SRS to make sure
     sites with SPF enabled, and users with who filter mails based on SPF
     rules, will be served nicely.  Debian should itself publish SPF records
     as well.

  c. We don't know whether SPF is a good idea, and if enough people do use
     it, we should not bar them from access to the Debian list.  So even if
     Debian might not implement SPF (i.e., not publish a SPF record in the
     Debian DNS server), it should implement at least SRS to make sure other
     users of SPF is served nicely.

The result of the discussion (whether a or b/c) do directly influence the
action to take.


Reply to: