From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [CORE] SPF Record ... |
Date: | 2006-11-17 06:15:35 |
Message-ID: | 6821.1163744135@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> I'm thinking of adding one to DNS, but after reading up on it, I'm a bit
> concerned how this might affect some ...
I'd recommend it. I've had one on sss.pgh.pa.us for a year or two now
and have seen no serious ill effects. I don't currently use SPF for
incoming filtering either, but it makes a good basis for disavowing
forgeries-in-my-name, of which there are all too many :-(
> Since those having @postgresql.org accounts shoudl be limited to these two
> lists, can anyone comment on a) is this a bad idea? and b) would they be
> affected because they don't use SMTP AUTH and c) why aren't you using SMTP
> AUTH? ...
Hmm. What it would mean is that anyone sending mail with a
"From: soandso(at)postgresql(dot)org" line would have to be sure it went out
through the postgresql.org servers, else it might get bounced. The
question is, would anyone who has a legitimate claim to such a From:
address be inconvenienced to the point of vetoing this? If so why?
+1 on the idea, but am willing to listen to objections...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-11-17 06:21:45 | Re: [CORE] SPF Record ... |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-11-17 06:15:07 | Re: [CORE] SPF Record ... |