Le 03/06/2019 à 17:21, Sam Hartman a écrit : >>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Lange <dla...@debian.org> writes: > > Daniel> Hence I'd like us to offer email services to project members. > That's > Daniel> an offer. Not a requirement. If DDs use the Debian infra or > continue > Daniel> using their current setup, all fine for me. > > We're agreed so far. > > Daniel> Yes, a proper SPF record may make things more difficult for people > Daniel> that run their own. But I - for example - run my own and route via > Daniel> Debian MX (just the Debian mail of course). So it can be > Daniel> done. > > I explained why I find routing the mail problematic. > But more than that, you don't need the SPF record. > Debian could pay to get on one of the white lists, we could use some services > like Amazon SES, we could possibly get a good enough dkim reputation > that we don't need to do any of the above. > > My point is that from experience, the SPF record will totally cripple > people wanting to use their own infrastructure even worse than we see > today.
We can use "~all" or "?all" in SPF record, so it would increase Debian's email reputation when using Debian SMTP services but would authorize to use some other service. I remember that there is something like that in DKIM. > I absolutely agree with the idea of improving Debian's email reputation. +1