> On Thu, April 10, 2008 18:29, Arvid Ephraim Picciani wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 April 2008 17:16:40 mouss wrote:
> >> I personally have found that SPF causes more problems than it helps, and
> >> for that I do not recommend setting SPF record for "general use" domains.


On 14.04.08 20:03, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> spf supports +ALL, please tell me why its a problem ?


setting +all on a domain may indicate a spammer. Some spammers use this to
make stupid people think it's not spam (because it passes SPF test).

> > mind explaining more detailed? I use SPF on all 300 domains. I don't think
> > anyone actually checks them but so what? Maybe somone does. Whats the trouble
> > you speak of?

>
> maybe bad asumtions that it breaks forwards :/


no, SPF does not break forwarding. Automatic forwarding without changing
envelope from address is broken already - if the forwarded address has a
problem, sender gets a bounce about undeliverable address, different from
the one he sent the e-mail to. What to do with the bounce? Was his mail
delivered to anyone?

The situation is similar to mails sent from mailing lists and should be
handled similarly. Forwarders that don't rewrite the sender's address behave
as those "mailing lists" that do not...

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@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.
Enter any 12-digit prime number to continue.