On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 2:22 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
> Dnia 16.10.2024 o godz. 15:03:19 Michael Orlitzky via mailop pisze: > > > 2. The benefit you cite is the usual one for the sender, but a) it > > > ignores issues with receivers, and b) it ignores multi-hop scenarios. > > > > What issues? A priori, recipients ignore it. It doesn't get much easier > > than that. > > Which means, in short, that the senders you are talking about set up SPF > only because "big" receivers require it. Not for any actual, measurable > improvement, but because they are simply *forced* to do so. (BTW, I do > exactly the same thing). > > My opinion is that it is crazy and it shows how crazy idea SPF is. > I'd think "able to send mail to receiver foo" vs not is a measurable improvement. Even before no-auth/no-entry, it almost certainly was a measurable improvement if there was sufficient volume to be able to measure such things. "big browsers require valid certificates" with no "measurable" improvements... Anyways, the requirement from receivers is that mail is authenticated, not that SPF is the mechanism for that. Maybe there is an argument that being able to coach someone through SPF on the phone or email is just extending their pain, they will likely run into some other problem with deliverability or such down the line that will be harder to solve, that the modern email ecosystem has a higher minimum bar, and if you can't meet that, you should be using a vendor or software that does the heavy lifting for you. Brandon
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
