RFCs are supposed to make specific use of certain imperatives, as per RFC2119:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT are used differently, where the former means something
is not recommended, and the latter means it is prohibited.
And yes, it's not good behavior to send f
It appears that Slavko via mailop said:
>>Interpretation aside, the fact they are (mis?)understood to be the same thing
>>is a clear conflation. It may be language based, it may
>not, but please stop splitting this specific hair.
>
>I am confused now as in RFC 7505 sect. 4.2 one can read:
>
>
Dňa 25. mája 2023 13:36:13 UTC používateľ John Levine via mailop
napísal:
>it is quite antisocial to send mail but not accept responses.
I agree with domains sending but not receiving to be not good.
I even didn't consider that case.
>By far the main use of
>Null MX is for domains that do no m
So basically SPF is worthless. You can define all the IPs that legitimate
mail for the domain should be coming from and exclude everything else with
a -all and mail servers are just supposed to ignore that and look for a
DMARC record?
Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
What's next? Another D
On Fri, 26 May 2023, at 11:10, Scott Mutter via mailop wrote:
> So basically SPF is worthless.
It's not worthless at all. It's a valuable signal to assign reputation as part
of an overall filtering solution, and useful as part of DMARC. It's just the
`-all`/`?all` etc. bit on the end that proved
Never mind – or ? and think of what happens to those poor domains that are
saddled with a +all SPF record.
From: mailop on behalf of Neil Jenkins via mailop
Date: Friday, 26 May 2023 at 9:16 AM
To: Mailop Group
Subject: Re: [mailop] Microsoft Office365 not rejecting emails when instructed
so
