On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 09:44:10PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 16:33 -0500, Bill Adragna wrote:
what will prevent the spammers from getting a valid SPF record for
themselves, thus blowing up the whole point of the SPF record?
Absolutely nothing. See the 'rapidly adopted SPF' link from the third item
under 'Problems with SPF' in http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html
Admittedly, it's rather old information now, so I don't know if the
statistics are still similar -- but certainly the principle hasn't
I don't really expect to persuade Alex. He usually just degenerates into
insults without really managing to come up with any coherent technical
Normal people are reading your messages to, david, and will
instantly recognize the insult in the following line:
But if just one or two _normal_ people out there take notice
and start to think for themselves, that'll be worth it.
Normal people have the right to make a choice. Either they do not
want *their* email, be it as a originator or as a forwarder, to be
subject to SPF, or they do.
When they do not want to use SPF, then they will not use SPF. In
that case, SPF does not bother them, at all.
But if they do choose to opt-in to SPF, they do so by choice and
are fully entitled to do so.
Who are you to think those people are wrong? And what are you doing
here on this list, trying to mislead those people?
SPF is fundamentally incompatible with SMTP email as people have been
using it for decades. Use it at your own risk.
Ah... so now you do agree when people use it.
Still, the question remains: why on earth are you on a Don Quichotte
like cruisade against SPF if you are not using it yourself. What is it
that you don't understand and get bitten by.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com