-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 June 2004 10:54 am, Andy Bakun wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 12:25, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> > Unfortunately it is exactly spam in the UCE sense. Your message is no
> > more or less important in the grand scheme of things than anyone
> > else's, and no more worthy of cost-shifting receipt. It took me a
> > while to learn that lesson, but learn it I have.
>
> If the postmaster account is useless now because of changes in the
> social nature of the Internet, then it should be removed as a
> requirement. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing the postmaster
> account is meant for?
>
> Section 4.5.1 of 2821 doesn't mention a suggested usage, but 4.5.5 does,
> and referrers to "someone who is able to fix problems". This implies
> "reactive" reasons to contact the postmaster. Are there any references
> to contacting the postmaster for "proactive" reasons -- my quick search
> didn't turn any up.
>
I do see value in using postmaster as purely a "reactive" system. "Hey,
postmaster, I tried to send an email to you but it is saying "SPF checks
failed: You are not allowed to send email for yourdomain. What the heck
does that mean?"
But sending out a notice to postmaster may not be appropriate.
Perhaps a friendly message to a postmaster is acceptable? "Hey, you've been
sending me about 100 messages a day and they're all being rejected. You
should really publish SPF records because the default SPF record isn't
working for you."
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
Mass Mail Systems Developer, Amazon.com
jonagard@amazon.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAyf1EBFeYcclU5Q0RAuwGAJ9jjgPRKPprGpUX2KEjijvrVLlnJQCgrnRi
xFCVXSNpzvZyGiPf4njqDhU=
=BmDB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-deployment@v2.listbox.com
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 11 June 2004 10:54 am, Andy Bakun wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 12:25, Alan Hodgson wrote:
> > Unfortunately it is exactly spam in the UCE sense. Your message is no
> > more or less important in the grand scheme of things than anyone
> > else's, and no more worthy of cost-shifting receipt. It took me a
> > while to learn that lesson, but learn it I have.
>
> If the postmaster account is useless now because of changes in the
> social nature of the Internet, then it should be removed as a
> requirement. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing the postmaster
> account is meant for?
>
> Section 4.5.1 of 2821 doesn't mention a suggested usage, but 4.5.5 does,
> and referrers to "someone who is able to fix problems". This implies
> "reactive" reasons to contact the postmaster. Are there any references
> to contacting the postmaster for "proactive" reasons -- my quick search
> didn't turn any up.
>
I do see value in using postmaster as purely a "reactive" system. "Hey,
postmaster, I tried to send an email to you but it is saying "SPF checks
failed: You are not allowed to send email for yourdomain. What the heck
does that mean?"
But sending out a notice to postmaster may not be appropriate.
Perhaps a friendly message to a postmaster is acceptable? "Hey, you've been
sending me about 100 messages a day and they're all being rejected. You
should really publish SPF records because the default SPF record isn't
working for you."
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
Mass Mail Systems Developer, Amazon.com
jonagard@amazon.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAyf1EBFeYcclU5Q0RAuwGAJ9jjgPRKPprGpUX2KEjijvrVLlnJQCgrnRi
xFCVXSNpzvZyGiPf4njqDhU=
=BmDB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-deployment@v2.listbox.com