On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I don't think that's going to be anything but unwelcome noise. What > would they do if they became aware of the issue? They could switch > providers, but that only works for so long. As soon as Gmail switches > to p=reject, we've lost. We got away with doing it for Yahoo because > there's not a lot of people using that -- not on these lists anyway.
On further thought I think Gmail going p=reject is the wrong thing to worry about. The thing we need to check is how major mail providers like Gmail and Yahoo handle SPF failures *today*. There are plenty of domains we probably don't want to miss emails from that *already* have p=reject. For example if a Google employee mails us from @google.com [*] today that domain has p=reject so will everyone reading the list on Gmail or Yahoo miss the email? I bet other major companies have p=reject on their corporate domains as well. I'm hoping that as long as the DKIM signature succeeds those mails will still get through to Gmail, Yahoo, etc. There may be some people who miss it due to supporting SPF but not DKIM but if major providers fall into that camp then we're done for regardless of whether they have p=reject for their own domains. [*] This finally explains to me why there was a push to get employees to use an alternate domain for their free software mailing list posts instead of their @google.com address. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
