On 11/05/2024 03:40, Bill Cole wrote:

So what? domain owners state hard fail it SHOULD be hard failed, irrespective of if YOU think you know better than THEM or not, if we hardfail we accept the risks that come with it.

In practice, there is a prioritizing of whose wishes I prioritize on the receiving systems I work with. If my customer wants to receive the mail and the individual generating the mail is not generating that desire fraudulently, I don't care much about what the domain owner says.

I hope you have an indemnity clause in your contracts (or written statement from them) to legally protect you, and your professional indemnity insurance (or your countries version of it) is current...

I do not work for the domain owners of the world and I am not obligated to enforce their usage rules on their users.

Obligated no, its your network, your rules, but honouring them is the correct "good netizen" thing to do.

I'm sure the crime gangs and spammers reading this list greatly appreciate you telling them they got better chances with you then most :P

Obviously I take their input seriously when trying to detect fraud but I've seen too many cases of "-all" being used with incomplete or obsolete lists of "permitted" hosts to accept that they know all of the places their mail gets generated.

The idea of using -all is not just configuring it and forgetting it, it's part of the accepted risk that if you change something, you change your SPF statements too, if they forget, the complaints of blocked mail should prompt them to fix it, or if they are just flat out too damn lazy, then they get what they deserve.

Adherence has improved out of sight in past 5 to 10 years, and I've seen no problems caused by SPF, I can't remember the last time we had one.

I've also given up all hope of getting the few places that are still doing transparent forwarding to adopt SRS or any other mechanisms to avoid SPF breakage to ever change.

I guess the traffic with them is low, if it was high, blocking would likely get them off their buts.

--
Regards,
Noel Butler

Reply via email to