From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161049AbWFJXG2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:06:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161050AbWFJXG2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:06:28 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:11935 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161049AbWFJXG1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:06:27 -0400 Subject: Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter) From: David Woodhouse To: Matti Aarnio Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060610222734.GZ27502@mea-ext.zmailer.org> References: <20060610222734.GZ27502@mea-ext.zmailer.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:06:30 +0100 Message-Id: <1149980791.18635.197.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.1.dwmw2.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 01:27 +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote: > Now that there is even an RFC published about SPF... Please, don't do this. SPF makes assumptions about email which are just not true; it rejects perfectly valid mail. http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html -- dwmw2