-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hey Mark, good to read you once again.
Mark wrote:
From the very get-go, the SPF community has always been very careful
not to confuse anti-spam with anti-forgery.
Let's be honest -- this isn't exactly true:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030713124604/http://spf.pobox.com/
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://spf.pobox.com
This mistake was flushed out of SPF's public relations only gradually in
2004 and 2005. Unfortunately, this miscommunication provoked negative
responses that emphasized that it was spammers in particular who were
adopting SPF early and thus at that time caused a domain having an SPF
record (or even specifically yielding SPF Pass results) to become a good
indication for spam.
Fortunately this is changing. In a very large and semi-representative
data sample, the spam ratio is ~75% for e-mail not covered by SPF (i.e.,
SPF None), ~80% for e-mail covered by SPF (yes, that's still a bit higher
than the no-SPF ratio), and merely ~45%(!) for SPF Pass specifically.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHbYUbwL7PKlBZWjsRAr8aAKDJ0MALvO8Uwa8nwlIOj01rXw5ZpgCfV1mr
gpatSGn9JkBZVFGy3dnnAnQ=
=GAAE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=78859594-3b62f1
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com