Markus Stumpf wrote:
Justin Murdock posted this link on the qmail list:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3631350.stm
"CipherTrust [...] found that 34% more spam is passing SPF checks
than legitimate e-mail."
I suggest everyone else do what I did. I clicked on the "Feedback" link up
at the top and filled out the form as follows.
YOUR COMMENT IS ABOUT: Factual Errors
URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3631350.stm
YOUR COMMENT:
In your article "Spammers exploit anti-spam trap", you completely missed the
point of SPF. Instead of reporting the use of SPF as a positive, you
portrayed it as a negative.
We WANT spammers to use SPF, because then they are easy to identify. If 100%
of spammers used SPF, I could easily blacklist all e-mail coming from their
domains, and then I'd receive no spam.
Please make a better effort to consult technical experts before making a
report. Several others in the media got the story right (or came close), and
it is very disheartening to see that the BBC (which I rely on for unbiased
reporting) got it completely wrong.
Michael R. Brumm