On 19 May 2017, at 8:52, John Levine wrote:
In article <alpine.deb.2.21.1705191719450.22...@doob.fam.tuwien.ac.at>
you write:
It might be obvious in this particular case but it isn't in general
if
your users asked or agreed to reject SPF-Fails.
I would be pretty impressed to find a mail system where the users even
knew what SPF fails were, much less agreeing to lose real mail because
of them.
Well, it's not unheard of to see TOSes that contain provisions for
spam/malware/illegal content filtering. Considering that from the 1st
paragraph of RFC-7208 it's clear that the intent is to "authorize", I
would think the shoe would fit.
SPF can be a useful tool, but it's really tiring that people keep
trying to make it a FUSSP. Because it isn't.
I don't think anybody has claimed SPF to be a FUSSP on this discussion.
As you say, it's a useful tool and some are trying to make the best use
out of it.
Best regards
-lem
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
