Re: [Exim] Fixing SPF Forward Problem by Reply-to: Hack?

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 07:53:56AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Right. So you accept that SPF gives you no benefit which isn't _also_
> offered by other ways of verifying that the envelope sender really is
> valid for the mail in question? Hence that such alternative methods only
> need to be demonstrated to cause less breakage than SPF to be considered
> superior in terms of their cost/benefit tradeoff?

That, and someone else needs to adopt it before I'll adopt it.
I've been the guinea pig enough times and it gets tiring :-)

> > There might be other solutions out there, I don't know of any which are
> > becoming as popular as SPF.
>
> That seems to be just because there are many na??ve people out there who
> don't understand SMTP very well and but are inundated with crap and
> willing to clutch at straws. Some people also block MAIL FROM:<> in
> desperation to prevent themselves from receiving bounces to joe-jobs. I
> consider the SPF adopters to be similarly illadvised.

Horses for courses.
While blocking MAIL FROM:<> might not been a good idea always, it IS a
good idea if you're getting massively joe-jobbed. You just need to
remember to fix it afterwards to accepting again.
Similarly, SPF might not be for you. No-one said you have to block mail
based on SPF. But as a good neighbour I believe you should spend the few
moments it takes to add a DNS record to help other people.