spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2004-09-01 23:44:00
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 02:09:59PM -0700, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
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.

It's just a pity that they get them to publish 'v=spf2.0/pra' records,
but I guess it is some consolidation that after senderid has died the
miserable dead it is destined for it will be easy to s/spf2.0\/pra/spf1/

Just on a sidenote, where do they get this v=spf2.0/pra, afaik the
version string is still subject to debate..

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/


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