On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:32:36AM -0500, Marc Alaia wrote:
| I am/was trying to say this and only this:
| 1) SPF checking should NOT be done at SMTP time. It is less intrusive to
| the entire installed base of email infrastructure to process an email AFTER
| it as been accepted. In this way, it can be processed along with other
| spam-related checks. And,
I am specificaly going to process SPF at SMTP time so that I know whether or
not it is worthwhile to do any additional processing later. If SPF fails,
then it will be rejected during the SMTP transmission and NO BOUNCE WILL BE
SENT AT ALL. Only if SPF determines that the domain owner says it's OK will
I open the possibility of sending a bounce (which will go to that domain's
MX servers, so they should have a say in it).
| 2) The major argument for processing SPF at SMTP time has been bandwith and
| processing savings, which I believe are MINIMAL for non-ISP's.
I disagree. 75% of my bandwidth is email, and 60% of that (for a total of
45% of all the bandwidth) is spam. Many other ISPs are like this. I know
some that have even higher figures. They have BUSINESS customers mostly,
and that means a lot less web surfing and a lot more email traffic.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
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?¡