Re: Nice but...

blues <at> bluesong.com wrote:
> Point taken. Part of my point was that domain owners often are not in
> control of the servers where their domain resides. Unless I have totally
> missed the point (and because I'm still getting up to speed on SPF, maybe I
> have), that leaves the domain owner at the mercy of the host. I know the
> practical advice is to move my domains to a host that will support SPF and
> be responsive to domain owners, and in time I will, but the fact remains
> that I cannot force compliance. So while separating the protocol from the
> application of that protocol is fair, it doesn't change the real-world
> effect. 

One thing i forgot to work into my reply was the fact that of course
your domain hoster also could have _not_ put any SPF record in there
and no bad things would have happened...

Gr,

Koen

--

-- 
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/