From: Edmig [mailto:emgemgemg(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: zondag 6 januari 2008 19:17
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Revising SOFTFAIL
On Jan 5, 2008 4:01 PM, Mark <admin(_at_)asarian-host(_dot_)net> wrote:
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
that way, having to rely on the goodwill and HELO of a legit relay...
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.
There's a difference between hoping the relay will have checked for spam,
and counting on it. I'm saying: don't count on it. As receiving MTA, it
sure were nice if I could count on the last hop having set a nice, special
HELO for me, to indicate it didn't quite trust the sender or his mail. But
is that a realistic scenario? I don't think so. And even if someone
actually did that, as receiver I cannot bank on others doing my (partial)
homework for me. I am, as it were, purposely not 'cognizant', to use a
legal term, of what the connecting client may or may not have added in the
department of extra info that might help me determine whether a message is
a likely spam.
Also, what you suggested, that such info could be send along, as it were,
by means of different HELO, is not currently done a lot (if at all).
Likely they added some SpamAssassin headers or so, if they did any
checking at all. But I can't be bothered trying to come up with difficult
schemes to determine the validity of said headers (as if there even were
such a reliable method); and even if those headers were real, the spammer
could have just added those himself.
In short, far as I'm concerned, I rely on my own mettle.
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