> On Tue, 5 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> On 04.05.09 16:43, Charles Gregory wrote: >>> Strictly speaking, getting them to use it consistently and properly will >>> be MORE difficult, >> more difficult than what? More difficult than discussing it here or more >> difficult than implementing PSPF based on your sick setup and requirements?
On 05.05.09 10:32, Charles Gregory wrote: > Less difficult than getting people to respond rationally and > intelligently to what I actually posted rather than grabbing a sentence > out of context and using it to construct a glib insult. > I don't have a problem with being wrong. But if you think you're going to > 'shout me down' with arrogant pronouncements like the above, well, good > luck with thtat... Defining personalised SPF would cause much more work and troubles for users. Yes, apparently not for you. Many people responded this thread saying it's bad idea. You repeated a few times that you have no problem being wrong but apparently you are not taking anyone's arguments but yours. As I have already said, configuration you prefer (each user sends mail through its ISP's mail server) requires changing configuration every time they connect from different place. The configuration we are recommending only requires setting configuration once, but correctly. Many providers are doing the same. Any provider using SPF and/or DKIM requires (by nature) that users send mail through their SMTP servers or webmail. The whole point of SPF is defining mail from which domain must be sent through which servers. Yes, I repeat, your idea is sick, based on completely different approach much (most?) of the world currently uses. Want more arguments? - setting up PSPF for user connecting through different provider takes you away verification that the sender is really the user. Only you at your mailserver can validate the e-mail address. - anyone connecting through such provider could fake the users' e-mail address withot you being able to block the mail >> internet connection is much easier than changing SMTP server every time >> they connect to other network. > > You know, at least the other posters have brought up port 587, which > offers a way around the standard port 25 block that stands in the way of > your 'easy' idea. I was the first one in this thread who brought up port 587. Unless the mail archive is lying or hiding something. Check yourself >> Send the notice two or more times. They will comply when they will >> start getting failures and you'll be able it's because they didn't read >> and follow multiple > > Ah, I'll take a guess as to what *that* twisted syntax means. Firstly, it > means that you typed your message in a hurry, which reflects that you > just skimmed over my e-mail with equal speed, missing all the fine > points. You didn't really care to read my full reasoning for why I can't > rely on notices. OK, sorry for misreading. I've read your message twice (to be sure what I've understood) but apparently I've missed something. > We may be not-for-profit, but we still have to run on > membership revenues, and those revenues *drop* when people decide that > "we have a problem" and instead of phoning us, they think the solution is > to go find another ISP. I've had people phone me up to cancel their > accounts because their e-mails "didn't work for three weeks", when they > had a glitch in their anti-virus that was blocking pop. You would think > that any reasoning human would call us for *help*. No, they just presume > *we* have a problem, "wait" for us to fix it, then go find another > provider.... Stupid. And yes, sometimes I think we'd be better off > without those clients, but times are tight, and no we would *not* be > better off. So we avoid situations where users who don't read notices > have any changes that can interrupt their service. So we have to have an > OPT-IN mechanism that at the least will get the 'PSPF' working for the > people smart enough to use it. Well, the main problem is you don't have the PSPF and I doubt anyone will want it. I work for an ISP where we run into the same problem, but are moving towards requiring authentication, of course we'll warn all users they need to set it up if they haven't in the past. Of course I know users are stupid. But trying to define whole new protocol with certain flaws (see above and other mails, I don't like repeating clear things over, others apparently aren't too) However to prevent ourself from running into problems (we ran into one last) there's no other way than to implement some "security" checks even if we risk loosing some customers >> Please, stop the PSPF discussions and go implement something that will >> work without changing the whole internet > > LOL! Please stop discussing ideas? I would hestitate to offend any > particular relgion by citing a specific example, but WOW do you ever > sound like the worst religious leaders telling their followers what they > can believe or say or do..... I was at the idea all problems have been made clear to you, I was apparenly wrong. Here you are with new arguments again PSPF. -- 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. 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
