On 22 Mar 2004 at 12:37, Edgar Lovecraft wrote about
"Re: [Exim] Fixing SPF Forward Probl":
| Fred Viles wrote:
|...
| > So you *know* what you are advocating is impractical.
| >
| What I advocate is no more impractical than those that advocate SPF.
We'll have to agree to disagree about that. You seem to be making
some connection between the two that I just don't get.
|...
| > I disagree. Advocating that admins to set up what you view as proper
| > rDNS would be fine, but you are advocating that admins set up a system
| > you know perfectly well will block a lot of legitimate mail. That is not
| > ethical IMO.
| >
| Go back over my postings, I have said that this 'should be implemeted first
| by those that will force a change',
Right, you want someone else to take the heat from their users and
accept the lost business for the common good.
| and I also am very prudent in always
| stating that if this is used currently as a 'deny' that you will lose email
| bothe good and bad. I DO WARN, so how is this unethical?
It wouldn't be, if you actually did it. I can not find any such
warning in the posts you've made in this thread, though.
|...
| > You have a small user base, and can not afford the collateral damage.
| > Yet you want services with millions of users to adopt it. What do you
| > think would be the impact on MSN if they started to block a substantial
| > amount of legitimate mail from reaching their subscribers?
| > How can you imagine they could do such a thing, when even you can not?
| >
| Because, just as I currently do, AOL, MSN, and others, can encourage the
| 'rDNS == DNS A == HELO name' by giving 'prefered' service to those MTA's
| that are 'correct' in this manner, and delay in various ways, the
| connection to those that do not. Then after some time (6 months? 1 year?)
| move to the "we gave you plenty o' warning, comply or we deny" stage.
1. That's not what you said.
2. I do not believe the collateral damage would be reduced to an
acceptable level that way. They would have to actually block email,
which they can not do. It's a chicken-and-egg problem.
| This
| is the same approach they are already taking with SPF is it not?
How so? AFAICT, blocking based on SPF records is an entirely
different kettle of fish. With SPF, for better or worse, the
recipient server is honoring the intentions of the sender domain's
owner.
- Fred
