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.
On 17.10.24 01:07, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
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.
I do: I receive less complaints about spam sent from my domain, but not from
my IP address(es).
And the same argument about authentication applies to DKIM authentication,
do you consider that one bad too?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
"To Boot or not to Boot, that's the question." [WD1270 Caviar]
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
