New warning message...

[Noel Butler]

On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 08:50 -0500, Barry S. Finkel wrote:

> > This was discussed here already, and imho this is anti-spf bullshit like
> > all those "spf breaks forwarding" FUD. The SPF RR is already here and is
> > preferred over TXT that is generik RR type, unlike SPF.
> 
> 
> It is not Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt that "SPF breaks forwarding".
> SPF *DOES* break forwarding.  I have a case I am researching right now
> where forwarded mail is undeliverable due to SPF checking at the
> new destination.
> 



Nothing is perfect, every single gmail user coming via mailing lists
also fails DKIM.
There is no magic answer, but I wish more would enforce SPF, especially
banks, but cant expect them to have any clue, their only expertise is
ripping people off.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20130723/151e267c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20130723/151e267c/attachment.bin>