spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Non-adoption of SPF by most-phished domains

2004-09-01 14:09:59
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 01:02 pm, terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com 
wrote:
I expect that the senderid IPR and license issues, the confusion around
the license and/or the confusion on what exactly the PRA means is the
lack of record deployment issue FOR THOSE THAT HAVE HEARD OF
SPF/SENDERID.  This coupled with the fact that even if you  *do* want to
publish, a lot of DNS providers do not support txt records, or at least
not through an admin interface (and nobody wants to wait on hold for a
support desk rep to say "You want to do what?").


I have called my ISP several times over the past six or so months about TXT 
records. Interestingly enough, now they know about it and they have a plan 
to start implementing it. This is a great deal of progress from before when 
even DNS administrators didn't know what a TXT record would be used for.

For those that have not heard of it, well we know why they haven't
published.  I really wonder how many mail admins fall into that category,
though.  I personally have had a mail admin in a remote site email me and
say "have you heard of Microsofts new Senderid?"  (I kid you not, his
question was based on an article where MS/the author does not acknowledge
Meng or SPF as the roots).


The only good thing is that to comply with SenderID, you have to publish SPF 
records. At least Meng won that point. Now we will have Microsoft actively 
campaigning for more people to publish SPF records.

- -- 
Jonathan M. Gardner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBNjqnBFeYcclU5Q0RAj+xAKCiAQbpVZJlIfMFI4K2GP0NfQESeQCgpCsO
Lruavl7umYFnUbY/xkiy9yY=
=EZkm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>