Dustin D. Trammell wrote:
Jim Ramsay wrote:
R. Scott Perry wrote:
[1] You end up being a spammer (the majority of spam sent to you
will result in confirmation requests being sent to innocent victims)
On the off chance that a spammer puts in a "real" address in the
envelope sender (I think they usually just generate random strings),
this is true. However, I feel that this is seldom and using SPF
should reduce this.
I don't really want to get into this discussion, but I thought that I
would mention that this exact scenario happens to myself and many of my
users quite often. We regularly get undeliverables, bounces, and a few
challenge messages delivered to us because spammers use not only our
domains in the sender address, but also some of our active user
accounts. It's quite annoying, and the primary reason I support the SPF
effort. Not only do joe-jobs annoy me as an administrator of mail
servers, it annoys my users as well because their addresses are
regularly being used as the spoofed sender addresses.
I agree that this is the biggest problem with C/R. This is why I am
going to heavily advocate SPF on the TMDA developer / user lists. I
want to reduce spam for myself and for everyone else too.
That was kind of the point of my original post:
- Hooray, SPF, it is a good idea and I will try to use it and advocate
its use.
I'd like to apologize to the list that this got way off topic and moved
into the realm of the pros and cons of C/R systems. That is not the
point of this list, nor was it the intent of my original post to start
such a discussion.
--
Jim Ramsay
-------
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?¡