Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
clifford_ilkay at dinamis.com
Tue Mar 3 16:17:26 UTC 2009
Nils Kassube wrote:
> Paige Thompson wrote:
>> read this.
> This paragraph of the Wikipedia article is interesting:
> | Qualifiers
> | Each mechanism can be combined with one of four qualifiers:
> | + for a PASS result. This can be omitted; e.g., +mx is the same as mx.
> | ? for a NEUTRAL result interpreted like NONE (no policy).
> | ~ for SOFTFAIL, a debugging aid between NEUTRAL and FAIL.
> | - for FAIL, the mail should be rejected (see below).
> And this is your setup:
>> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
>> devel.ws. 3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:aspmx.googlemail.com ~all"
> So according to the article you listed as reference, your setup
> with "~all" doesn't request a rejection but is merely a debugging
>> Not my fault or problem :/
> Well, I think it is your fault (and our problem).
So now you're becoming nitpicky and changing your story to justify your
aggression. Originally, you were saying that she was a spammer, which
made a bunch of bozos pile on. (*Odd* how that works.) Now you're saying
that instead of an error in commission, it was an error in omission.
There is a big difference and even if it was an error of omission on her
part, it wouldn't have made one bit of difference if Canonical's servers
don't care about SPF, assuming SPF worked the way she thought it did. I
think you owe Adele an apology or at the very least acknowledge that
there was no intent to spam as you so fervently alleged earlier in this
1419-3266 Yonge St.
Canada M4N 3P6
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3286 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the ubuntu-users