On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:41:17PM -0800, Greg Connor wrote:
| My quick read on the important points to address...
Thank you all for the suggestions on the article. I have taken them
into account and will follow the guidelines you presented. I take care
to present SPF as an anti-forgery technology first and an aid to
anti-spammers second.
| First, SPF will not "solve" spam. Claims that it will are not helpful.
| Acknowledge that SPF is one way to add accountability to SMTP transactions
| for those who decide to use it, but SPF by itself will not stem the tide of
| spam.
|
| SPF will help some domain owners guard against forgery. There will still
| be forgery, but those domain owners who choose to use SPF get a modicum of
| protection. Spammers who want to get their message out to more readers may
| start to avoid spoofing with SPF-protected domains and move on to the
| millions of unprotected domains. Thus SPF is a "necessary but not
| sufficient" first step toward addressing forgery and adding accountability.
-------
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?¡