On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, wayne wrote:
In <20040210203849(_dot_)GW6151(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
The fact remains that to date, antispam vendors have been much, much
more receptive to SPF than the MTA community. [...]
I think that the reluctance we are seeing from MTAs is mostly due to
the code maturity levels. The patches to the MTAs are new, the SPF
implementations are new, and the SPF spec is new. For those who don't
understand SPF, this looks like a very high risk item.
It may very well be the case, but the code and the process at large won't
magically become any more mature or widely tested if there never is native MTA
support.
I for one look forward to trying libspf (in my case, on Sendmail) once
it's all together. And if Spam Assassin (or MailScanner, or both) had SPF
today, I'd have it up and running tomorrow. Especially if it can just
add some configurable number of spam point to SPF rejected mail. Not as
good as reject-for-data but it helps work up the comfort level.
Us early adopters needs something to adopt if it's every going to become
mature enough for the mainstream. You don't have to enable it by default
in your MTA - that would be a bad idea.
--
#!/jameel/akari
sleep 4800;
make clean && make breakfast
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-20040209.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡