spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Role of SPF in fighting spam

2005-06-29 19:38:40
David MacQuigg wrote:
:
1st issue: please trim your posts,
Is this better?

Much better.  When I click Re:News my UA loads the complete
old article (quoted, but needig manual fixes), and getting
rid of hundreds of lines of quoted old stuff is a PITA with
this monster.

I find it easy to scroll past the quoted section.

Yes, reading is easy, but replying is a PITA (with my UA).

I'm sorry if I underestimated the importance of eliminating
backscatter in the benefits of SPF.

For those whose domain (or vanity host in my case) is forged
it's really important.  My "1000 per day" were relatively
harmless, OTOH with a V.90 connection this is very relative.

To me the big benefit is still the possibility of
eliminating spam.

Now, yes, backscatter is very often "user unknown" "user over
quota" etc., it's not "primary target hit".  So if SPF helps
me to get rid of some backscatter, it helps at the same time
those primary targets (= not me, I'm only the secondry) on a
system supporting SPF.

If SPF is successful, I believe the rest of the pieces of a
complete solution to the spam problem will follow.

I've no problem if you or AOL do interesting things with PASS
more or less ignoring FAIL, like Carl's "assume innocent until
proven guilty" PASS concept.  Or some SIQ ideas.  But when you
say "minor annoyance" about 180,000 bogus bounes in 6 months,
I'm pissed off.

I believe others on this list share my goals

I guess most would say, that "good" without "bad" doesn't work.
Without a FAIL the complete SPF concept is totally irrelevant
for most involved parties.  But it's okay if some ignore "bad".

                            Bye, Frank



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