Re: New email address
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: New email address |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEywFSg5kvixg9f62F9QVyYR+zbCP6fA-=vjBYbPuFoKjA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: New email address (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
-- On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I don't think that's going to be anything but unwelcome noise. What
> would they do if they became aware of the issue? They could switch
> providers, but that only works for so long. As soon as Gmail switches
> to p=reject, we've lost. We got away with doing it for Yahoo because
> there's not a lot of people using that -- not on these lists anyway.
On further thought I think Gmail going p=reject is the wrong thing to
worry about. The thing we need to check is how major mail providers
like Gmail and Yahoo handle SPF failures *today*. There are plenty of
domains we probably don't want to miss emails from that *already* have
p=reject. For example if a Google employee mails us from @google.com
[*] today that domain has p=reject so will everyone reading the list
on Gmail or Yahoo miss the email? I bet other major companies have
p=reject on their corporate domains as well.
Google doesn't actually reject, but it increases the likelyhood of it hitting spam significantly. However, they put a fairly low value on the SPF records. In my experience, it seems they put a much higher value on DKIM (failed or not).
Of course, Google also only actually *supports* email if both sender and receiver is on gmail. Anything else is "we hope it works". (Yes, I have official responses from google paid support saying they only support scenarios where both sender and receiver is on gmail)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: