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.
SPF is not anti-spam, it is anti-forgery!
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
I know it sounds pedantic, but they should not publish bad records.
You'd better use SPF right at the gate in this case (so that is
postfix for you), because then an SPF failure will result in the
message being rejected and the sender getting a bounce message
explaining the problem so that they know something is wrong. This is
what SPF was designed for anyway and it might save you some bandwidth.
I am not sure where to get NPOV's on this ( picked the term from
wikipaedia ). Will SPF be widely used in the future.
Let me see.. Where did i put my crystal ball.. Ah right, there it
is.. Hmm, I see something (random handwaving above crystall ball)..
I see an SPF adoption graph.. Yes, it is a red line.. And wait..
(shaking crystal ball slightly) I can see it goes right through the
ceiling!
I do think SPF usage will increase, because no-one likes his domain
to be used by spammers. Whether SPF or crypto-based solutions like
Yahoo's domain keys or yet some other approach is the big winner,
one can debate about that..
Gr,
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/
-------
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