-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of A. Clausen
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:13 PM
To: IMGate@mgw2.MEIway.com
Subject: [IMGate] Re: Signed up for the spf stuff
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Checca [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IMGate@mgw2.MEIway.com
Sent
Also, the big guys will be more likely to start enforcing spf values when
they see many of us have properly setup SPF records.
The big guys can force the issue, as only they have the power, but, as they
have shown on PTR and helo hostnames, they refuse to wield their power.
The big guys won't
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Checca [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IMGate@mgw2.MEIway.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 14:29
Subject: [IMGate] Re: Signed up for the spf stuff
So, is SPF a whitelist feature? a blacklist feature?
Since most of us have solved 98+% of our SPAM
Just curious on if any of you are signing up for this service?
http://spf.pobox.com/
---start of one man's opinion... quick! hit delete if you are
easily offended :)
No. Not until the big guys start using it. I don't mean when they add the
records to their own domains, but
Also, there's nothing to sign up for. You can use SPF whether you
register with spf.pobox.com or not. It is just DNS records.=20
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob McGregor
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:30 PM
To: IMGate List
Just curious on if any of you are signing up for this service?
http://spf.pobox.com/
I follow the SPF list, here's msg of frustration from recently:
I want an RfC for
v=spf1 a.s.a.p. All these permanent modifications like adding
zone-cut, removing zone-cut, use PRA instead of MAIL FROM,
don't
So, is SPF a whitelist feature? a blacklist feature?
Since most of us have solved 98+% of our SPAM probles, SPF will at very
best be tiny increment of help, and we are a long way from very best SPF
implementation.
Len
I see SPF records adding a low weight in the entire anti-spam system,
Personally I'd like to see
Marking Mail Transfer Agents in Reverse DNS with TXT RRs
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-03.txt
move forward and get adopted.
Sounds good to me, but so did SPF in the beginning. :)
mtamark has, for me, the same problem as
Quoting Len Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Personally I'd like to see
Marking Mail Transfer Agents in Reverse DNS with TXT RRs
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-03.txt
move forward and get adopted.
Perhaps I misunderstood this RFC but it seems trivial
