spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "worm spam" and SPF

2004-11-26 04:30:44
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:13:09AM +0000, Fridrik Skulason wrote:

[on viruses and their bounces]

According to my definition that is "spam" - and even those who prefer
a more narrow definition should at least agree that this is unsolicited
and unwanted.

It is far worse than the virus itself.

* We (f-prot.com) published a SPF record, with -all.  I am not going to
  discuss the possible problems with that policy, but we did evaluate
  the advantages and disadvantages.  Hopefully someone has rejected some
  worms based on that policy - however, we are getting plenty of
  "bounces" from domains that obviously have not implemented SPF
  checking.

Those domains accept mail without validating the intended recipient
and/or they send notifications from their virusscanner.

When they're that ignorant, I wouldn't expect them to correctly
deal with spf either.

* In fact, it is irrelevant how many domains publish SPF records. Even
  if every single domain had a record with "-all", it would not help
  one bit.  The reason is of course that what really matters is the
  number of domains that actually check SPF records and reject and
  drop mails that fail.

Not at all.  There are domains that currently use SPF from spamassassin.
Without debating if this is good or not, you wouldn't notice that this
happened.  There are more SPF checking domains than you think.

cheers,
Alex