nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
From: Chris Owen <owenc () hubris net>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 00:53:26 -0600
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:42 AM, John Levine wrote:
I also agree that any domain with live users (as opposed to mail cannons sending ads or transaction confirmations) is likely to experience pain with -all from all the overenthusiastic little MTAs whose managers imagine that "stopping forgery" will lessen their spam load rather than losing mail from roaming users.
Again I guess I don't understand. How are these MTA managers being "overenthusiastic"? Publishing a SPF (with -all) is essentially me requesting that they reject any mail from my domain not coming from one of the approved hosts. I'm the one making the decision to ask them to bounce such mail. Seems to me they are only being responsible in actually enforcing a policy that I set for the domain. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Owen - Garden City (620) 275-1900 - Lottery (noun): President - Wichita (316) 858-3000 - A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)