On 7/26/23 7:20 PM, Matija Nalis wrote:
I'd appreciate more civil expressions of disagreement
+1
I personally know several people who still use procmail today, sooo...
+1
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!)
Is said sendmail.cf based on a sendmail.mc file or is it older / bespoke?
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.
I agree with following the latest BCPs *if* *reasonably* *possible* *to*
*do* *so*.
But I don't agree with upgrading just because something is old,
especially if it's still working.
After all, Ethernet is 50 (?) years old and TCP/IP is no spring chicken.
Yet we are still using them.
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.
Sometimes you find the diamond in the rough that knows how to care and
feed said systems and does tweak them to abide by / support BCPs.
Sure, I'll be first to agree that it is bad and should be fixed.
What is the actual problem that /needs/ /to/ /be/ /fixed/?
Procmail can forward emails without re-writing the envelope if the MTA
does the envelope re-writing for it.
Just because something is old and doesn't provide the latest and
greatest feature doesn't mean that something else can't assist and
provide said feature.
The complete solution needs to provide the features. Not all features
need to be provided by specific components.
Telnet over a VPN is perfectly fine especially if the destination
doesn't support something better.
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)
#truth +1
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)
+1
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?
I was wondering, but I couldn't be bothered to look up the dates. I
think I started using SPF in the mid-2000s. Maybe late 2000s.
That was less than a decade ago, barely yesterday :)
LOL
Grant. . . .
