Re: Wot no SPF?
If that's what the domain owner has declared, then yes. It is. That's what ownership means.
So when user B doesn't get user A's email because user B has configured a forwarder and the email is rejected due to a violation of user A's SPF record, it's user B's fault?
Well, you have some strange ideas about SPF and make that claim. I use it, and would not. Perhaps you might like to wonder if there is more than just mere correlation to that...
I HAVE been using SPF for a long time now, mainly because of "hey, it's one more thing you can try to make email deliverability work better". The fact that I say it's a joke doesn't mean I say no one should use it. It means don't put much faith behind it.
And the fact that you use it and would not make the claim that it is an ineffective anti-forgery system does not make the opposite true. Please do share anything that was not true about my anti-forgery statement.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
