I am sorry that obviously none of you who have told me to "just block by
domain" or "let the reputation filter handle it" do this stuff for a living or
on any sort of volume scale, because if you did, you would know how insane that
sounds.
Limiting SPF to class C addresses does not break anything... it is a
enhancement. It allows me to do MY job efficiently and effectively.
I sure hope that most in this group will step back, take a look at what they
are suggesting, imagine the poor shmoe that has to implement and administer it
(please assume that he or she has a life), then modify it accordingly. (which
is all I am trying to accomplish here)
If SPF was implemented tomorrow and everyone put a record of +all - SPF means
nothing, does nothing, can do... nothing. It can't even legitimize the IP that
it is coming from... which is its whole purpose.
Legitimate mailers who do not want to be spoofed, will limit their SPF's to
class C anyway. Why not make it a requirement?
I am truly interested in the work this group is doing. I also want to ensure
the "product" viable, implementable, valuable, and sane.
<rant>
Adding "Reputation Filters" into this discussion was a play at forwarding your
own champion.
I personally do not like the idea of reputation filters in their current form.
Don't get me wrong, they have their place- but not as a RFC'd requirement.
</rant>
But again, I was not asking about them in my original post. I was asking (and
I will ask again)- Can we limit SPF's to Class C addresses?
If the answer is "No." Then thank you very much- I will consider anyone with
over /24 or +all as a spammer and block them. Darn, THAT was easy!
Regards,
Damon Sauer
*****
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking
of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error,
please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 113