nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
From: John Levine <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 3 Dec 2009 06:42:58 -0000
I guess I've never really seen the point of publishing a SPF record if it ends in ~all. What are people supposed to do with that info?
Get your mail delivered to Hotmail, the last significant outpost of SPF/Sender-ID. Other than that, I agree it's useless. 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. R's, John
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)
