Dean Anderson <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Michael Hammer wrote:
It might be useful if people checked their facts before using rumor
or secondhand reports as the basis of posting to the lsit.
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 10:58:34 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson
<dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com> wrote:
Isn't that what I said would happen?
--Dean
It has been reported that AOL is already using SPF to give reduced
filtering to SPF-using domains. Is this a good idea?
Please visit: http://postmaster.aol.com/spf/
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.
I think their website is pretty clear.
Their website is clear. And their use amounts to less stringent
checking for those using SPF, which is bad for the reasons I stated.
And I might add that this explains why spammers have quickly adopted
SPF.
But AOL won't have spammers on their whitelist. The only domains for which
an SPF Pass means less filtering are those which are pre-whitelisted. And
SPF will ensure that mail which appears to be from those domains isn't
forged.
What's your problem with this? It's using SPF for exactly what it was
intended, and the fact that spammers publish SPF will have no effect on it
at all.
Peter