On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 07:11:59AM +1000, Noel Butler wrote: > On 27/07/2023 05:09, Matija Nalis wrote: > > > Any SPF, no matter how correctly configured, will lead to false > > positives in some cases (e.g. encoutering mailing list > > B.S.
I'd appreciate more civil expressions of disagreement, though, if this means what I think it means. > mailing lists have been smart enough for over 20 years to rewrite sender and > not appear as a basic forwarder - which are you are correct, however there > are forwarding abilities to rewrite sender which avoids this, its been 15 > years or more since I've used procmail which by default did not. I personally know several people who still use procmail today, sooo... Your assumption seems to be that EVERYBODY upgrades on regular (yearly-or-so?) cycles, and updates their configs to latest recommended practices at the same time. That at least I can attest is not always the case (I still see systems with custom sendmail.cf which nobody dares to touch, and with a good reason!) Yeah, I agree that it sure would be nice if world worked that way and everybody upgraded regularly and configured them according to latest BCPs, but around here at least, it sometimes (I'm avoiding to say "often") doesn't. There are quite a few systems that someone knowledgable setup some time back, and after they've gone to greener pastures, nobody have touched them, yet they continue to use them. Sure, I'll be first to agree that it is bad and should be fixed. But I won't agree that "it does not exist", nor would I agree that it doesn't matter (if it didn't matter to them, people wouldn't be asking me to troubleshoot it, and yet they do) > If you are going to dry-reach to support an argument, please use modern I'm not aware of that "dry-reach" idiom, would you care to explain? > facts and not 1990's. I was a *very* early adopter of SPF back in late 90's > and have had zero issues in 20 years in using SPF (as expected as an early > adopter, teething issues as with all software needed fine tuning in very > early days) Good for you. But that is anecdotal - you are certainly not participating in every mailing list in existence, nor do you contact all people on the planet which use every kind of mail forwarder. Neither do I, but I service lots of systems of other people that do, and with many people, the chances rise. So, still in 2023, I have to deal with SPF (and DKIM) failing due to such forwarders/ML (as well as misconfigurations, of course) Also, 1990s? Weren't first SPF-alike ideas drafted first time in early-mid 2000s, and SPF itself not published as *proposed* IETF standard until 2014? That was less than a decade ago, barely yesterday :) -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.
