In
<200401131452(_dot_)56495(_dot_)dan(_at_)boresjo(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
Dan Boresjo <dan(_at_)boresjo(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> writes:
On Tuesday 13 January 2004 2:41 pm, tv+spf(_at_)duh(_dot_)org wrote:
Ideally, a SMTP reject rather than bounce (to lower the likelihood of
bouncing to a forged third party).
Since the message has already passed SPF checks, there is no risk of bouncing
to a third party.
Well, "no risk" is not 100% true. SPF doesn't eliminate *all*
forging, only the forging of the domain name. An AOL user could still
forge other AOL users' email addresses. That is, of course, if AOL
allows such things.
Still, this is one of the things I really like about SPF. A lot of
the bogus email (non-commercial UBE) is things like bounces, email
worms, and email worms that have been "processed" by anti-virus
systems.
-wayne
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡