On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:43:57AM -0400, David Brodbeck wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:40:48 +0200, Koen Martens wrote
I think the real discussion is: do we still want to allow this
practice? Given that it opens the floodgates to spam if embodied in
an spf policy, maybe spf is not a solution here.
for (i=0;i<10000;i++) {
print "SPF is not meant to end spam.\n";
}
yes, i'm utterly convinced of this fact myself.. i meant of course that it
opens up the floodgates of abuse of your domain. As a corrolary, your domain
will be used by spammers, and that again will get you on blacklists. Better
like this? :)
But I think that if you read my post again, and supress your
spf-is-not-anti-spam,
you'll be able to see the point (which is not mine btw, i've seen it come by
every now and then on this list).
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Send us money! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
pgpYQn8e0MTRS.pgp
Description: PGP signature