| 1 |
On 03/03/2018 07:47 AM, Stroller wrote: |
| 2 |
> My recollection is that I read this isn't that beneficial - that a policy |
| 3 |
> of ~ is adequate. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I'm guessing that you're referring to SPF's "~all" policy. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Why, as a domain owner that knows for a fact where messages are sent |
| 8 |
from, want to allow for the possibility of someone else spoofing |
| 9 |
messages as my domain to be "…accepted but tagged…"? |
| 10 |
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I run the servers, I know the email infrastructure, I *KNOW* how email |
| 13 |
is supposed to flow. So why give anyone an in rode? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Further, I accept any and all responsibility for the SPF record that I |
| 16 |
publish blocking any legitimate email that I (*) send. The onus is on |
| 17 |
me if I break delivery of email that I send. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
* I do not consider messages from me re-sent by mailing lists to be |
| 20 |
messages that I send. I say this because my email infrastructure does |
| 21 |
NOT connect to any of the mailing list subscribers receiving email |
| 22 |
infrastructure. IMHO the mailing list is sending a /new/ message to |
| 23 |
those recipients. Said message just happens to be strongly based on a |
| 24 |
message that I sent. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Finally, each and every single email administrator / domain owner / etc |
| 27 |
is allowed to configure their systems as they see fit. If they (or I) |
| 28 |
want to do something that will shoot them (or me) in the foot, who am I |
| 29 |
(or you) to stop them (or me) from doing so? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Grant. . . . |
| 35 |
unix || die |
Archives