On 06/07/2011 09:09, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: >> > On a general basis, I recommend against using SPF, but if one "must" use >> > SPF, remember to NOT set it restrictively. >> > >> > That is: never, ever use "-all" or similar constructs that restrict >> message >> > handling to a few hosts, unless you are absolutely certain that messages >> > will NEVER exit your private/company network. >> > >> > Pain ensues if it does. >> >> That's generally the idea of SPF though > > To ensure pain? It certainly seems so.
SPF causes mail delivery problems in some scenarios. I don't think anyone would deny that. From my experience, in practice, your email is more likely to be rejected because of a false positive on a spam filtering system than it is to be rejected because of one of these SPF issues. I don't ever see anyone arguing against the use of spam filtering though. -- Mike Cardwell https://grepular.com/ https://twitter.com/mickeyc Professional http://cardwellit.com/ http://linkedin.com/in/mikecardwell PGP.mit.edu 0018461F/35BC AF1D 3AA2 1F84 3DC3 B0CF 70A5 F512 0018 461F
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ## List details at https://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/
