Chris Siebenmann wrote: > You write: > | >> Don't use SRS where the > | >> SPF record contains "+all". > | > > | > Instead, just reject the message. It's almost certainly spam. > | > | Probably won't even see it here.... rDNS fail IS a hard-fail. > | > | But I have been known to tweak SA to add penalty points to users > | of DK, hashcash, and S**. And enough points to hard-fail those > | organizations that 'bless' direct advertising registrants with a 'free > | pass' of negative points. > > I suspect that you'll see more and more domains with SPF records, > because it is becoming a more and more reliable way of getting GMail > to accept your email relatively promptly. We ran into this issue here, > in part because a lot of our users forward their email to GMail, and > so I held my nose and added a SPF record. > > - cks, who is not a fan of SPF in general
Interesting possibility. But with a year-plus of logs showing consistent QT and DT to the Gmail's receiving MTA of only 2 or 3 seconds off a server clear out in Hong Kong, China .... I'm not sure what could be improved if I *were* to adopt any of those 'goodies' not in the decades-old smtp specs. What sort of delays were you seeing, and could there have been some other cause? As to 'more and more domains'. Published? perhaps. Required? Questionable. I think that is more likely with DKIM than either SPF or SRS, and not all that hard and fast with any of them. Not only old-line 'purists' that insist the original smtp spec - if only FULLY IMPLEMENTED - is good enough a barrier to abuse, and simpler - but a far greater number of lazy or 'iggerant'. ;-) Bill -- ## 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/
