Martin Nicholas wrote: > It's important to note that it is not the recipient servers "fault" for > rejecting hard (the record contains: "-all") SPF failures. It's the "SENDER > Policy Framework" - in other words the receiving server is rejecting mail as > required by the sender's policy (misconfigurations notwithstanding). It's the > duty of any good mail admin to do so IMHO. > > The solution is to use SRS, as previously described. Don't do this unless the > message in question passes your own SPF tests. If you don't make these checks > then you need to, as otherwise you'll SRS-up all sorts of rubbish (and > possibly generating backscatter from your server). Don't use SRS where the > SPF record contains "+all". Good also to set up a domain (and SPF record) > explicitly for the purpose. > >
Stone me for an ignorant heathen, but what could possibly be wrong with ignoring BOTH SPF and SRS altogether? And that is not in jest. I'm serious. Bill Hacker -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
