On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2 at 03:34 PM, quoth Dean Anderson:
> >On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Josh Trutwin wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter, not entirely following you. Are you suggesting I should
> >> avoid SPF entirely?
> >
> >For different reasons, Yes: avoid SPF entirely. There were 14 reasons
> >that I collected originally, and a couple more discovered since.
>
> I'd love to see them, to add them to my arsenal of why SPF is an
> idiotic idea (the broken forwarding is enough for me).
Hmm. I'll put them up on a web page. I'd sort of lost interest when
everyone else seemed to lose interest.
> >But no one (significant) blocks email based on SPF,
>
> There, unfortunately, I beg to differ. In my experience, verizon.net
> blocks mail based on SPF (which REALLY bugs me, because some of my
> clients have me forward their email to their verizon.net accounts, and
> my server is left holding the bag for all these mails verizon won't
> accept). They aren't hotmail.com, but they're still a major ISP in the
> US.
How recently? I haven't had any problem with verizion.net. Though,
verizon.net has a history of doing stupid things for a short while.
Blocking non-spam email is a violation of federal anti-trust law
(participation in unlawful group boycott) and also state and federal
electronic privacy laws (no authorization to block non-spam email).
Some letters to Verizon may be necessary.
BTW, if they are using SPF to prevent email outsourcing or to link IP
access services with email services for domains they host, that would
also probably be an additional anti-trust violation, distinct from the
participation in an unlawful group boycott, as well as torts of
interference with contract, unfair competition, etc. Duress,
conversion, and extortion are also possible, since they've already
contracted with the customer to provide services which include
communications with your servers, and therefore have no honest grounds
to demand further payments.
--Dean
|