implementing SPF, which milter?

[Hugo van der Kooij]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Michael Choo wrote:

> thanks. However the users that travel and are affected are senior management 
> with no clue.
> the only thing they can do is raise lots of fuss about mails being rejected 
> by their clients.
>
> I think i'll try the port 587 solution and see how that goes.

Pardon me. But if they send message directly to clients and they get 
rejected their admins should get a smack on the head for not building a 
proper infrastructure.

These people, like everyone else in the company, should deliver their mail 
through the company network. They should be given VPN access to their own 
office so they can do this sort of things the right way.

However solutions like this come with a price tag and sometimes the same 
persons who do not wish to pay for a proper infrastructure are the most 
profound in spitting their anger for getting the results of a poor 
infrastructure.

Just tell them internet is like a battlefield. (Well it is in fact.) So if 
they go out without proper protection they are likely to get themselves in 
a fix out there.

As usual admins are the people who get stuck between a rock and a hard 
place in these discussions.

Hugo.

-- 
 	hvdkooij at vanderkooij.org	http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
 	    This message is using 100% recycled electrons.

 	Some men see computers as they are and say "Windows"
 	I use computers with Linux and say "Why Windows?"
 		(Thanks JFK, for the insight.)