SPF record

[Res]

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, D. Stussy wrote:

> "Res" <res at ausics.net> wrote in message news:geokdr$2q93$1 at sf1.isc.org...
>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Faehl, Chris wrote:
>> ...
>> DKIM is like SenderID in that they are both seriously problematic with
>> mailing lists, where as SPF is not, which is one reason why I wont be
>> doing any DKIM testing on our MTA's, its the reason I dumped SenderID
>> checking, now everyones happy :)
>
> Why is domainkeys problematic with mailing lists?  Any mailing list should
> validate the poster and when redistributing, regenerate (or remove) the
> signature.  There is no problem.  Remember that the signature is to cover
> deliver TO the list and not beyond.

Tell that to all the people who had automated messages from mailing list 
servers threatening to auto unsub them for too many bounces (blocks 
because of failed checks), now this might be because the way hte mailing 
list servers were setup, I dont care, all I care about is my users getting 
legitimate mail and standard SPF RFC4408, has not AFAIK, caused any 
problems, not for me, not for any users.


-- 
Res

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem!