On 8/23/14 11:45 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 23, Doug Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I get it. Advances in e-mail security are making your life (and perhaps
even your business model) more difficult, and you don't like that. But
complaining about it isn't going to help. The world is moving on, if you
Yes, this is clear to me even without the lecture: in the email world
receivers make the rules, so right or wrong they may be the rest of the
world has to adapt.
Excellent, I'm glad we found some common ground. :)
I was just pointing out that some "facts" are not so well established.
If you'll pardon me saying so, it seems that you have a pretty
well-defined agenda through which you're viewing your "facts." But
again, I won't quibble.
DKIM, etc. It's been a couple of years at least that you can't send mail
with any degree of confidence to the big three without at least SPF, and
over a year that you also need DKIM.
Looks like your servers are in a very bad neighborood then
Actually it's squeaky clean, and my IHP has no tolerance for
shenanigans. I chose them partly on that basis.
(or you have
a very problematic mail stream), because I am quite sure that this is in
no way universally true.
I didn't say "universally true." I chose my words in my previous message
carefully, and I stand by them.
However what IS universally true is that the holy triumvirate of
rDNS/SPF/DKIM will only make it more likely that your mail will be
accepted, and is the only way to avoid outright delivery failures and/or
arriving in the spam folder for many receivers, and the value of "many"
increases daily.
Given that we seem to be in agreement on that, hopefully we can now all
move on. :)
Doug
