This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040304050303040805070002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



John D. Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>
>> I'm just tired of having to deal with the bad side effects of SPF
>> and expainging to people that the can't use my spam filtering
>> unless they turn SPF off.
>>

>
> What's wrong with that? They are explicitly contracting with you to
> perform mail forwarding, if they do that then they should add your
> MTAs to their SPF whitelist and still perform SPF checks on mail
> that does not reach them via you.
>
> Are you performing SPF checks on your inbound feeds?
>
>

I perform no SPF checks at all because it's useless. There is no
information to be gathered that's useful. Several people forward email
to my servers and it breaks forwarding. I also forward email to other
servers (front end spam filtering) and when I forward good email the
receiving server sometimes rejects the message because of SPF false
positives.

SPF breaks email forwarding. And that's something that the world isn't
going to give up for 0 benefit.


--------------040304050303040805070002
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit











John D. Hardin wrote:
cite="mid:Pine.LNX.4.33.0707122345200.10202-100000@gypsy.impsec.org"
type="cite">
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Marc Perkel wrote:



I'm just tired of having to deal with the bad side effects of SPF
and expainging to people that the can't use my spam filtering
unless they turn SPF off.



What's wrong with that? They are explicitly contracting with you to
perform mail forwarding, if they do that then they should add your
MTAs to their SPF whitelist and still perform SPF checks on mail
that does not reach them via you.

Are you performing SPF checks on your inbound feeds?