[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Revising SOFTFAIL

2008-01-06 12:39:32
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:16:56 -0700 Edmig <emgemgemg(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 4:01 PM, Mark <admin(_at_)asarian-host(_dot_)net> wrote:

  Edmig wrote:
If X can't get control of spammer accounts on its webmail servers, or

whatever, it would be very easy for them to use a different HELO name

for those servers.

 In other words: let the legit relay determine what is spam, and let him

set a HELO accordingly? I'm afraid that doesn't make much sense. Other

than that you make spam-fighting an almost entirely passive operation 

way, having to rely on the goodwill and HELO of a legit relay who

What is the purpose of a relay, other than to ensure the deliverability of
its clients' messages?  This is where the burden of stopping spam belongs,
and where it can be done most easily.  The relay knows (or certainly should
know) the clients for which it is handling mail.

allegedly already set a spam-HELO to indicate that the message to follow

will likely be spam, such a relay would be guilty of willingly sending 

spam in the first place.

No legitimate relay would send messages *likely* to be spam.  A more
realistic case is a relay handling both individual messages and mailing

They may not have a choice.  Once mail has been accepted by the relay they 
pretty much have deliver it (possibly tagged as spam).  Having mail vanish 
into a black hole at a relay is a recipe for unreliability.

For reasons of performance and scalability most content based scanning is 
done after mail has already been accepted and queued.

Scott K

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: 
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>