On Sep 9, 2004, at 18:11, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Michael Hammer wrote:
AOL has NOT said they will do less stringent checking if you publish
an SPF record. What they have said is that in order to remain on their
whitelist (assuming you meet all of the other requirements) you must
publish SPF records.
"A requires B" does not mean "B implies A" i.e. A<B does not lead to
B=A
So in order to be on their whitelist AOL will require to have published
SPF records. However those that published SPF records don't automaticly
get to be on the AOL whitelist!
It's pretty sad that people like the author of this article we got a
link to still see 1:1 mapping between "remove spam" and "minimize the
number of fake sender addresses". I thought "we" as a collective had
educated enough people to not get articles like this.
Sigh...
More education needed, else any mechanism which try to stop fake sender
addresses will fall in the same trap -- and be useless. We need ability
to track spammers (i.e. more correct data about the sender), someone
tracking and a legal system which penalizes the originator to show that
"spam is not ok". All three things. One piece in the puzzle is not
enough.
paf
Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> Cisco
Systems
Consulting Engineer Corporate Consulting Engineering
PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843 2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC