Membership disabled due to bounces
rlloken at telus.net
Thu Nov 24 22:52:33 CST 2016
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Graham Toal wrote:
> Not so. By doing nothing (ie NOT creating an SPF record for the sending
> domain) you pretty much guarantee a lack of problems. (At least, these
> specific problems). It's the smart aleck admins who do create SPF records
> etc who cause the problems, in conjunction with recipients that think these
> records are worth paying attention to. The irony is that SPF was invented
> by the advertising industry to ensure that their so called 'legitimate'
> bulk mail gets through; it does very little to stop actual spam and it
> completely messes up mailing lists and people who use traditional SMTP mail
> while travelling. Sorry, I shouldn't start on SPF, it just drives me
> crazy. If you are a DNS admin, *please* don't fall for the SPF bullshit.
> (For some reason Microsoft are totally enamored of it and twist their
> clients' arms to enable it :-/ )
You are preaching to the choir. Some of the first implementers of SPFs
were outfits that the rest of us would call spammers. As for Micro$oft,
my employer trashed our Zimbra and PMDF servers and sent us over to
Office365 so now I spend my time babysitting Exchange in the cloud,
writing PowerShell scripts, and waiting a Micro$oft minute for things
to happen that used to be immediate.
And you are right, Micro$ofts loves SPFs but they do nothing at all to
expedite our mail through their servers.
And in honour of Micro$oft, SPFs, and my 21st century managers, I am
retiring in 29 days.
Richard Loken VE6BSV, Systems Programmer - VMS : "...underneath those
Athabasca University : tuques we wear, our
Athabasca, Alberta Canada : heads are naked!"
** rlloken at telus.net ** : - Arthur Black
More information about the cctalk