Attn. "Helmut Schneider" <jumper99@gmx.de>

[Matthias Andree]

On Thu, 18 May 2006, Pav Lucistnik wrote:

> Matthias Andree píše v čt 18. 05. 2006 v 23:32 +0200:
> > As I can inject my message directly to GMX, I'm Cc'ing Helmut Schneider.
> > 
> > Ion-Mihai "IOnut" Tetcu <itetcu at freebsd.org> writes:
> > 
> > > gmx.de stupidly blocks mails from guys with @freebsd.org emails :)
> > >
> > >  freebsd.org descriptive text "v=spf1 ip4:216.136.204.119 ~all"
> > > means that listed ip is _NOT_ the only one legitimate SMTP server for freebsd.org.
> > >
> > > This last shit is nothing new as, in my experience, gmx.de is one of the
> > > worse administered email servers. You might want to change your email
> > > address to some other service, with at least half-competent admins.
> > 
> > Wrong- the downstream is free to decide what to make of SPF information.
> 
> Wrong - they should respect what the definition of ~all in SPF specs is.

Well - they set the policies what to accept. If they choose to refuse
all messages that have an "e" in the Subject: header content, you can
complain as much as you want, but they're still free to refuse messages
just because of "Subject: Re: foo".

That they're free to do that or misinterpret SPF doesn't mean I endorse
their behavior. The user can stop such nonsense, hence my CC'ing Helmut
- no non-delivery notice yet.

GMX also say that envelope senders should be subjected to SRS (sender
rewriting), but I don't endorse such either. SPF/SRS attack the problem
from the wrong end, but that isn't covered by the charter of this list
and has been discussed a thousand times in several dozen places.

-- 
Matthias Andree