Hi! On Tue, 07 Nov 2006, Georgi Georgiev wrote: > Quoting Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >Personally, after skimming through this thread, I'd say leave it as is > >and stick with Kurt's decision. Our developers clearly have nothing > >better to do than rant on about something as trivial as this. > > I ain't no dev, but how is this trivial? A typical scenario is: a > gentoo-dev sends an e-mail to a mailing list (a non-gentoo mailing > list) and that mail gets nuked by a greedy spam filter because the SPF > rules exclude (oh well, "do not specifically include") the server that > forwards the mailing list message. > > Or could it be that my understanding of SPF is flawed (quite likely)?
Exactly that happened to me: one of my mailing lists saw very odd bounces if a mail was coming from provider A who published SPF records. Unfortunately, provider B (the one who created bounces) did not only check the Envelope-Sender, but also the Header-From. This resulted in the mail being refused as it came from my server which wasn't in the SPF record of ISP A. One might argue that it's all provider A's fault (so there!), but it's not exactly helpful that way, is it? I *know* it's not my or provider A's fault, still we're the ones who have to deal with the fall out. So I steer clear of SPF as I don't want any of my users to fall into the same trap. That it's notoriously difficult to debug isn't exactly helpful, either. Regards, Tobias PS: That pre-delivery forwards are broken (something used quite often) is another story. SPF is broken in more ways than one. -- Never touch a burning system. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
