nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 05:11:46 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
(And before anybody asks, yes ~all is what we want, and no you can't ask us to try -all instead, unless we're allowed to send you all the helpdesk calls about misconfigured migratory laptops".. ;)
While I'll remain neutral about the specifics of SPF (and all the othersolutions), the legacy problem comes up trying to secure any thing. If it (and I deliberately leave "it" undefined) had never worked, no one would complain. Of course, there will always be someone who goes too one extreme or the other extreme. People were dropping heavily spoofed domains before SPF anyway.
At what point do we consider legacy support not worth it? It took 10+ years, but now almost no SMTP servers allow open relay by default. Will it take another 10+ years to stop supporting misconfigured migratory laptops by default?
Current thread:
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Rich Kulawiec (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Chris Owen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Chris Owen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? John Levine (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Seth Mattinen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Chris Owen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? William Herrin (Dec 03)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Sean Donelan (Dec 03)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Chris Owen (Dec 02)
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Dec 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact? Andre Engel (Dec 03)