[119858] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Thu Dec 3 05:12:43 2009
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 05:11:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <20145.1259812342@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> (And before anybody asks, yes ~all is what we want, and no you can't ask us
> to try -all instead, unless we're allowed to send you all the helpdesk calls
> about misconfigured migratory laptops".. ;)
While I'll remain neutral about the specifics of SPF (and all the other
solutions), the legacy problem comes up trying to secure any thing. If
it (and I deliberately leave "it" undefined) had never worked, no one
would complain. Of course, there will always be someone who goes too one
extreme or the other extreme. People were dropping heavily spoofed
domains before SPF anyway.
At what point do we consider legacy support not worth it? It took 10+
years, but now almost no SMTP servers allow open relay by default. Will
it take another 10+ years to stop supporting misconfigured migratory
laptops by default?
