Andy Bakun wrote:
checkout the website to find out exactly how brindead this
thing is.
Not my MUA, I took the posted description as is. If it uses
a configuration like SpamCop's "mailhosts" and its hardwired
"all MXs (for own addresses) are good" rule, it's better.
[ For William: SC skips over private IPs and scans top down.
The forgeries start below the configured "mailhosts", you've
already missed the searched IP when you reach the forgeries ]
The real fun starts when an a:sender.example IP rotates.
Thus the folly of post-acceptance SPF checking, yes.
It's not too bad, I asked about it in SPF-HELP some weeks ago,
and got the answer that you _normally_ see all IPs in these
load-balancing schemes. For news.clara.net that's true, But
not good enough if the user polls his mail only once per week.
Bye, Frank