Re: Wacky SPF Policy

>>>>> "sandy" == Sanford Whiteman <[email protected]> writes:

sandy> I can't independently confirm that it's happening, but if it is, you are
sandy> correct to be angry. It's an ignorant (mis)use of SPF if I've ever seen
sandy> one. The fact that a "joe job" was attempted against your address must
sandy> not result in address-level blacklisting.

I can see the outbound queue at WPI and followed the link.  I can't come to any
other conclusion.  They are temp/failing the messages and the link they give
leads to that description.

sandy> Perhaps a temporary misconfiguration on their side is responsible.

Maybe.  I came to the conclusion that maybe I should join this list, as pobox
suggested to me, and post about the policy.  Their reason I should join the
list was so that I could learn about SPF.

Maybe someone at pobox who actually knows what SPF is may read these posts and
would recognize that something needs to be fixed.  I suppose the odds are low.

Their helpdesk was unhelpful, so I'm grasping at straws.

It's hard to believe that an org whose business is email would have such a
fundamental misunderstanding.  If it was a company, college, or whatever who
had some broken mail policy, it might be more understandable; email isn't at
the core of what they do.