-----Original Message----- From: Charles Gregory [mailto:cgreg...@hwcn.org] Sent: dinsdag 5 mei 2009 22:40 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Personal SPF
> > Defining personalised SPF would cause much more work and troubles for > > users. Yes, apparently not for you. > > Everything is "more work". Question is, would it be WORTH it? > > > Many people responded this thread saying it's bad idea. > > To date, not counting the 'take my word for it' crowd, I've had one > concrete suggestion on how to do it 'better', which I am implmenting. Okay, enough with the righteous indignation already. Only several posts ago you had never even heard of SMTP AUTH, or how folks generally solve their roaming user problem by means of having them connect to 'submission' port 587. So, perhaps peeps could have been nicer about your ignorance; but the ignorance itself was squarely yours. Live with it. Way I see it, your idea was shot down, without much ado, not because of any alleged arrogance on 'our' end, but simply because folks like you are a dime a dozen, these days; whether it's on the marid/asrg/whatever list, there's always the bloke-du-jour who comes up with a 'brilliant' new, often elaborate, plan to do things differently. And usually, like in your case, they haven't done their homework first. A few simple google searching would have brought you to SMTP AUTH, port 587, STARTTLS, etc. Instead, thinking your idea was God's gift to earth, you decided to forego on finding out how people have been solving these issues for the last ten years. That arrogance was also yours. You just don't like being called on it. Wouldn't know about 'terrible' or anything, but your idea simply fails a variation of the Occam's razor test: it's unnecessarily complicated, hard to implement, harder to maintain, and non-centralized, whereas much simpler, more elegant, centralized solutions are at hand. Solutions you didn't even know about. That's where your quest should have started, and where this thread ought to end. - Mark
