Re: SPF (was: Re: Bug#257644: ITP: libspf2 -- Sender Policy Framework library, written in C)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: SPF (was: Re: Bug#257644: ITP: libspf2 -- Sender Policy Framework library, written in C)
- From: Isaac To <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: 01 Aug 2004 21:12:39 +0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20040704214611.39525198CD6@nightcrawler> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Aronesty <email@example.com> writes:
Erik> (1) In the real world, however, ISP's will use SPF to filter
Erik> mail and end users don't know their asses from their elbows
Erik> when it comes to "normal delivery paths". So SPF filtering
Erik> *will* break a lot of legit mail.
Then your campaign should be asking ISPs not to directly filter out
mails without your knowledges based on SPF.
Erik> Small business users with shareware mail servers are going
Erik> to patch their mail servers with SRS? Perhaps. Perhaps
I do think so as long as its users is using forwarding like .forward,
once the hurt is being felt by its users. The fault is that SRS is
not used, and the business has no actual power to stop others to put
out SPF records.