On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 12:07:08PM +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> --On 18 October 2006 09:53:10 +0100 Chris Lightfoot <chris@???>
> wrote:
[...]
> >>Indeed, but, as mentioned before, some will argue that if the spf is
> >>false you have no right to use their resources to verify things as it is
> >>probably a spam. And if spf != pass && spf != false (IE: not defined)
> >
> >This is a misconception. the fact that, say, a large ISP
> >publishes SPF records for some set of machines does not
> >mean that their customers may not send mail via other
> >servers. If I pay, say, AOL cash money for an AOL email
> >address, I'm entitled to use it however I like;
>
> Except in violation of their terms of use. Presumably that means that you
> can't use it in violation of their SPF policy.
it's not obvious to me that a contract written between me
and an ISP could prevent me from sending email that
doesn't go through their network at all. Has this
principle been tested?
(For reference, a quick look at AOL UK's site doesn't
suggest that they apply such a condition to their
service.)
--
``The fascination of shooting as a sport depends almost wholly
on whether you are at the right or wrong end of the gun.'' (P G Wodehouse)
