Yes, this is true...
The only real SPF relevant issue I see here is:
I think there should be a way within the mail servers (like sendmail, etc...) that allows the SPF status to be used as part of a
decision of a later process. There then needs to be a way to carry the SPF status with the email (that a Spammer can't fake) so the
later processes don't have to do the entire SPF tests again. I don't really want to multiply the SPF lookups and calculations
multiple times for each email.
I guess that would be a change in the milter interface that allows a chain of "extended results" for each milter and that gets
passed along to each milter to look at and append.
I'm done here.....
Dennis
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
How about sending a *real* (DSN) "bounce"! Then it can be easily ignored
by innocent bystanders. That is my main complaint - not that it bounces,
but that it doesn't! It replies instead of bouncing.
Once that glaring problem is fixed, how about "bouncing" incoming
viruses only
on SPF PASS? Or at least don't "bounce" on FAIL or SOFTFAIL!
Probably a good topic for a clam-av mailing list...
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription, please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com