On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:42:42 -0700 (PDT) [email protected] wrote: > > SPF is completely useless in the following sense: Rejecting mail > > because of SPF "fail" will absolutely cause valid mail to be > > rejected. You (and I) may say "Tough luck for domains that publish > > broken SPF records", but for some reason our customers don't see it > > that way.
> Broken SPF records do not generate a "fail" response. You misunderstand. I mean that an SPF record is "broken" if it specifies "fail" for a valid sending host. > I do say "tough luck" for otherwise valid mail rejected by an SPF > fail. You do not have to explain yourself to tens of thousands of customers, correct? In our anti-spam software and service, we recently implemented a policy decision that ignores sender and domain whitelists on SPF "fail" or "softfail". We've had endless complaints about this! We're not even blocking such mail; we're just *not* allowing it to be whitelisted, and still people complained. (So we made it possible to turn off the policy.) [...] > I pay for my own mail by use of the bandwidth I pay for, and I have > users other than just me in my domains. Do they pay you to provide service? In principle, I agree with your approach, but it's doomed to failure in the real world. The real world is a mess and sticking to strict, pristine principles of email delivery quickly means you'll have no paying customers. Regards, David. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
