--On 20 January 2009 19:32:41 -0800 Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
So dead that of hotmail.com, gmail.com, mac.com, apple.com,
microsoft.com, facebook.com, ebay.com only er..., all of them publish
SPF records.
It's not interesting who publishes SPF records.
It's interesting who reads them.
That depends on whether you're deciding whether to publish them, or whether
to read them.
If you're deciding whether to read them, then it's very interesting to know
who's publishing them. Who else is reading them is of secondary importance.
If you're deciding whether to publish them, then it's interesting (but
harder) to know who's reading them.
Of course, there's a cycle here. The value of SPF to readers increases as
their trusted correspondents publish records, and to publishers as their
trusted correspondents read records. The value to the world probably varies
according to the product of the two probabilities: A that a received
non-abusive email was received from an IP address with a positive SPF
match, and B that the recipient checks the record. The value for me,
depends only on those emails that pass my server. For inbound email, B is
zero or one according to my choice. A is outside my control, but appears to
be better than 30% already (for messages that pass IP address reputation
checks).
d/
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
x3148
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg