On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:54:05PM +0530, Ramprasad wrote:
We have already enabled SPF checks at SA level, but it doesnt seem to
have given great benefit. Probably because of low usage of SPF.
or because of wrong expectations?
On the top of it SPF checks cause problems when famous banks like
citibank , host wrong SPF records and their mail get caught as spam
Spammers can easily setup SPF records for their domains. That's OK,
but it does mean spammers are __not__ stopped by SPF. And this is
a known fact. SPF is a step in the process of stopping spammers,
not a final solution.
SPF is not anti spam. SPF is anti forgery.
If Citibank has an SPF record (it does) and if it sends mail from
another location, then that message is sent from an unauthorized
host. That does not make it spam. If your system is confused and
thinks it is spam, it is your system that makes this mistake.
Of course, Citibank needs to be aware of the problem. That's why
you have to verify SPF records at SMTP time, rejecting such a message
before it even enters your systems. Accepting the message and then
discarding it or, even worse, "bouncing" it, is wrong.
I am not sure where to get NPOV's on this ( picked the term from
wikipaedia ). Will SPF be widely used in the future.
I'm sorry but my crystal ball isn't even capable of answering that one...
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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