RE: Testing SRS
"Ryan Malayter" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.srs.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[David Woodhouse]
>It seems that the authors of the wizard in question would prefer to
>encourage others to publish broken ('-all') records, and bank on the
>fact that few people are actually dim enough to bounce mail
>just because it gets an SPF 'fail', as you yourself observed.
The problem is not naïve administrators, it is poor documentation. The distinction between 'fail' and 'softfail' is not explained in detail anywhere on the main pages of the main SPF site. The only portion that describes what 'softfail' truly means is the draft RFC, which is dated February 2004, well after I used the wizard to publish my SPF records.
In fact, many of the spf.pobox.com pages encourage sysadmins to publish '-all' after they have their all their users using SASL. No mention of the forwarding issue as it relates to '-all' can be found:
(http://spf.pobox.com/execsumm.html)
(http://spf.pobox.com/forsysadmins.html)
(http://spf.pobox.com/adoption.html)
>If your behaviour carries any influence with anyone else, I also
>consider it irresponsible even to publish SPF records.
I don't understand... why exactly is it irresponsible?
Regards,
Ryan