From: "Meng Weng Wong" <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 4:29 PM
The bandwidth problem of spam is a side effect of spam; if a
spammer wanted to just eat your bandwidth and not send spam
they wouldn't be a spammer any more; they would be a DDOSer.
And James Couzens wrote -
He further raises that 'most spam messages are so small that they likely
fit within your default receive buffer' and that this is a 'processing
issue' and not a 'bandwidth issue'.
So - if we're not fighting a bandwidth abuse issue, and we have
spamassassin, etc to filter our mail server-side, why are you doing spf? It
appears to be for the benefit of the vast majority of non-technical internet
users who just want a friendly environment for their browsing and mail. If,
as I understand it, spf is going to reject mails that don't match the sender
(From: headers) with the domain's TXT record in it's zonefile, we are going
to remove the need for all mail filtering software, and effectively
"white-list" those domains sending mail with a correct TXT record.
So are there issues here? Like anti-spf feelings amongst commercial
software makers, and some kind of enforcement of inclusion of TXT records
amongst the tens of thousands of ISP's who may or may not have some other
agenda.
Or have I got this completely wrong?
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492