----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Wildeboer" <jw(_at_)domainfactory(_dot_)de>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] more from paul roberts
Hi Nico & list!
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
Thus, providers are postponing implementations of SPF for
their incoming mail filters because they don't realize that classic SPF
is
stable and are concerned about licensing issues with Microsoft.
IMHO that is not true. At least in my company (we host 170.000 domains)
there was only one question:
Wait till we have a new record type from IANA or go ahead with TXT?
The current hype caused by the patent issues caused a different thing:
Many providers now see SPF as competetive advantage and are pushing
implementation. At least we do ;-)
The hype caused a lot of support calls/mails asking "Will you activate
SPF because I want to have it for my domain".
So we decided to implement SPF right away.
Many providers use SpamAssassin, so as soon as SpamAssassin supports SPF
(which is planned for the next release AFAIR) you will see that SPF is
going to fly. Trust me ;-)
As SpamAssassin does not support SPF at this very moment we are
reviewing the qmail-patch for SPF.
And I know a lot of companies are thinking and acting similar.
*EXCELLENT*. Nice to hear. I'd been dealing with smaller Boston area
providers on a casual basis, and hearing a lot of complaints about the
SenderID craziness.
So AOL has also circular-filed SenderID, according to a different post?
Good: that brings one of the top-tier email providers into the fold.