[LINK] Now that's secure - I guess

Noel Butler noel.butler at ausics.net
Sun Apr 1 15:42:40 AEST 2012


On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 17:59 -0700, Scott Howard wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net>wrote:
> 
> > If you do not like the restrictions (hey it *IS* their domain name you
> > are using afterall), and given as you claim to have your own domains,
> > why not use one of them, and configure SPF correctly, or since you
> > disprove, perhaps with softfail or not at all, forwarding? well to your
> > own domain one would hope one is clever enough to whitelist their own
> > addresses - It's so simple even a child could understand it.
> >
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you're missing the point.
> 
> No sane ISP in the world should be configuring SPF hard fail for a customer
> domain. It simply breaks far, far too much legitimate email.
> 
> Whether David has an alternative address he can use as a workaround or not
> isn't relevant - Pacific Internet has screwed up here.  They seem to be
> doing this for all of the customer domains, not just Hunterlink.
> 
> Despite it's flaws, SPF does have some valid use cases - even for hard
> fail.  ISP customer domains with a hard fail (ie, -all) isn't one of them.
> 


Guess Scott, you and I will have to agree to disagree


-------------- 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://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/attachments/20120401/02690b0f/attachment.sig>


More information about the Link mailing list