On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, wayne wrote:
8) SES gives senders who adopt it immediate protection from bounce spam
while still accepting valid DSN's without anyone else adopting anything.
SPF+SRS requires wide adoption before achieving a significant reduction in
bounce spam.
True, and this is the thing I like about SES. When I get time, I may
well use David Woodhouse's Exim patches to implement SES on my
system.
I am thinking about doing CBV only when there is no SPF record for the
claimed sending domain. Does this sound like a reasonable policy?
It would encourage domains suffering from lots of CBV probes (with or
without SES) to publish SPF records. I already do SES to prevent
bounce spam.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Very few of our customers are going to have a pure Unix
or pure Windows environment." - Dennis Oldroyd, Microsoft Corporation