On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 07:10:03PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:48:48PM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > I never demanded spoofing be corrected. I spoof daily for various > > legitimate reasons, as do many others. It's convenient; it breaks > > nothing. > > Absolutely true, and you can feel free to keep doing that for as long > as you want. If you want to accept mail from everyone and everything, > that's your decision. SPF is not required and unless it becomes part > of the SMTP protocol, will never be required.
I should also point out in the interest of disclosure that I advertise SPF records for this domain, and have for several weeks. I'm somewhat surprised to find that I still get bounces from AOL from spammer-originated spoofing. And, since I am advertising -all, there should be no question as to what is and isn't valid (although spfquery seems to guess at "neutral" for obvious violations, which just baffles me no end.) -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org
