[Sussex] spam filtering

[Vic]

> Vic, and many people believe that the world is flat too.

You've seen me say that, have you? Because otherwise, you'd just be
inventing things to prop up your ridiculous assertions.

> Just because
> you believe SPF to be a workable system doesn't mean that you are right
> either.

Given that a large number of people have got it working, a claim that it
is workable is entirely reasonable.

> However, I see some problems with it's implementation that I was trying
> to address with you.

That's because you are making assertions about the operation of SPF which
are not based in fact. You have misinterpreted the standard; what you have
understood is surely unworkable - but that's not what SPF is.

> You fail spectacularly it trying to convince me
> otherwise.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone that cares...

> I quote the spec at you and just tell me my interruptation
> is incorrect.  Big help!  In my experiance it is the people who just say
> "You're wrong" all the time without being able to say why are the one
> who don't understand things.

Had you bothered to read what I wrote before flaming, you'd have seen the
following :-

"You have read the meaning of the modifier attached to the default clause.
You have applied it to the entire record. This is wrong. Each clause in
the record has its own modifier (optionally omitted, in which case a "+"
is assumed)."

This is an explanation of why what you said is wrong. It explains why the
argument you hung upon this premise is unfounded, and therefore
irrelevant.

But don't let that get in the way of a good flame.

> As further evidence that you don't understand SPF and how to configure
> it properly I give you your own MTA.  Below is one of the received
> headers from your e-mail that I am replying to, presumably the MSA->MTA
> handover.  Your MTA, not knowning that e-mail to be genuine, accepted
> and relayed it.
>
>    Received: from hobgoblin.beer.org.uk (hobgoblin [127.0.0.1]
>                   (may be forged))
>              by hobgoblin.beer.org.uk
>              (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7K9pnlM026956
>              (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256
>              verify=NO) for <sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk>;
>              Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:51:49 +0100

And what exactly does that header have to do with SPF?

It is not relevant. Not even slightly.

Not only is there no SPF filter running on that machine (as I have already
told you), but there is nothing in that would fall foul of an SPF filter
if it were.

Steve, go do some reading, rather than just quoting random headers at
people. You're clearly way out of your depth.

Vic.