Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 10.04.08 20:03, mouss wrote:
>
>> Some sites cache results obtained from DNS beyond DNS TTL. I don't think
>> their DNS server caches the results (though I am willing to accept that
>> there are borked DNS implementations). It's more likely that whatever
>> $thing queries DNS is caching the result indefinitely or for too long.
>>

>
> so you are mistaking broken caching as SPF problem...
>
>


do you think I care of the specs if "important" implementations go west?
If you exclude broken specs and implementations, I will say that I have
no problems in this perfect collaborative internet world.

to sum it up: I don't see what spf would bring to me. the only time I
tried it, it went against me. that's enough for me. all other stuff is
pure theory compared to what I've seen. that's it. nothing more, nothing
less. and yes, I am biased. I was already convinced that spf was wrong
and I decided to give it a chance. the result was that I now know that
it is not even "neutral".

if you like spf, that's good for you. I don't. and it doesn't help to
believe that those who don't believe in are mistaken and have "false
assumptions". This is not acceptable. I respect opinions of those who
accept other people's opinions.

this subject has been debated many many times in many many places. let's
please not repeat the old debate. I respect your opinion but I disagree.
I am not inventing anything. many respected and respectable people have
spoken about this. google will tell you. let me just cite John Levine's
http://www.circleid.com/posts/spf_loses_mindshare/


and while I am in, let's talk about more important things:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829073103.htm
:-)




cheers,
-- mouss