Dnia 16.10.2024 o godz. 15:12:00 Brandon Long via mailop pisze: > I'd think "able to send mail to receiver foo" vs not is a measurable > improvement.
Only because that receiver arbitrarily decided that they will not accept mail that doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria imposed by them. Of course they can - "their server their rules" - but how far can that go? What about T-Online that accepts only mail from senders that have been previously manually whitelisted and rejects by default everyone else? Of course, if I need to send mail to T-Online I have to follow their rules and contact them in advance in order to be whitelisted - but this still can't convince me to not think this is crazy. Before "big receivers" started requiring SPF, I was able to send mail just fine to anywhere (maybe except T-Online ;)) without having a SPF record. I see no improvement in the fact that at some point I was forced to set up a SPF record just to be able to still do the same thing that I could already do. It is a perfect example of "heroically solving problems that we previously created ourselves", as the saying goes. > "big browsers require valid certificates" with no "measurable" > improvements... Wrong. You can still connect to a site with invalid certificate or just using plain HTTP. And at the moment any browser starts refusing to connect to sites without valid certificates, there will be many people who immediately stop using that browser and switch to an alternative that is not as crazy. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub." _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
