On 04/29/2010 10:47 AM, Al Iverson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Michael Thomas<[email protected]> wrote: >> On 04/29/2010 10:23 AM, Al Iverson wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:58 AM, McDowell, Brett<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:11 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your proposal that MLM remove Signatures would cause restrictive >>>>>> policies to fail. >>>> >>>> Which is why I oppose this proposal. >>> >>> As John Levine mentioned previously, your own posts to this list fail >>> authentication and end up in many of our spam folders because of >>> Paypal's SPF policy. I'm not against strong authentication policies -- >>> but I'm wondering how you personally expect to be able to post to >>> mailing lists without acceptance of this proposal? The status quo >>> interferes with your ability currently, and broader adoption of >>> authentication on the receiving side will only make it worse. >> >> The solution to a misconfigured SPF/ADSP record is for every receiver to >> patch it up post-hoc? > > I did not say that.
Then what did you say? If somebody's SPF/ADSP record is set up such that it fails through lists and they want their users to be able to use lists, they should change their SPF/ADSP record to reflect their actual sending practices. Putting the burden on mailing lists and everybody else to try to figure out what they *really* meant makes absolutely no sense. >> That makes absolutely no sense. > > Your apparent anger makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion. Your amateur psychology pronouncements are not appropriate for this list. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
