Agreed but with any change some code needs to be modified to support new ways of processing data.
As for the greeting card companies if SPF takes off they will wake up and change their delivery method. How else will they make their advertising buck? There will always be a time of adjustment where the configurations will have to be less restrictive. But if you notify all your accounts/programmers of the future tighting up of the policy the beenfit will be greater and the discomfort of change will be minimized. Kevin Bilbee > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy Schmidt > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 3:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF vs. Form Mail > > > Yes, I understand how it can be done - unfortunately, many form mailer > scripts don't use the "reply-to" header and greeting card > companies seem to > use the "from" field. > > Bottom line - unless web sites are being changed, we cannot define "-all", > we have to define "?all" since any of our users may be "sending" mail > through a third party web site. Of course, ?all means that there > will never > be a "FAIL" - which is equivalent to giving no or little weight. > > Best Regards > Andy Schmidt > > H&M Systems Software, Inc. > 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203 > Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 > > Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > http://www.HM-Software.com/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 06:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF vs. Form Mail > > > When we create a form on a server we never send the form using the email > address that the user entered. Toomany times the user enters the address > incorrectly. > > We use a from address of the domain we are in and place what the > user typed > in the body of the message. This guarentees that we get all messages. > > greeting card sites can do the same thing but they do not. The can use an > address in their own domain to send the email and add a header > for the reply > to address as the person who sent the message. They can also use > the persons > email address or name as the friendly name to display in the mail client > > > Kevin Bilbee > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy Schmidt > > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 2:29 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF vs. Form Mail > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I assume that Form Mail's are a big problem under SPF? If a web site > > (greeting card site) inserts the users email address as the "from" > > address, then it will fail SPF, correct? > > > > Or, if we host a web site for a client, the "registrations" or > > "feedback" form mailers email the input to the client using the "from" > > address of the web visitor (otherwise, clients tend to press the reply > > button and end up sending their acknowledgements to our mail server, > > rather than to the visitor). These emails will fail SPF, because the > > web visitors domain will not list our web server as a valid sender!? > > > > In other words, in real life, SPF is best use to subtract weight for > > "PASS", rather than add (any substantial) weight for "FAIL"? It has > > to be treated like the "SPAMDOMAINS" test - except that the entries > > are maintained by the > > owner of each domain and thus are more likely to be accurate. > > But we can't > > reach block based on SPF failures without ignoring the reality > of the www? > > > > Best Regards > > Andy Schmidt > > > > H&M Systems Software, Inc. > > 600 East Crescent Avenue, Suite 203 > > Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-1846 > > > > Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) > > Fax: +1 201 934-9206 > > > > http://www.HM-Software.com/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 05:20 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF caught SPAM already > > > > > > Wow, > > > > With only a few hundred domains registered, what were the chances that > > it would already catch spam: > > > > 12/18/2003 16:32:17 Q1cd609ef0252d469 DSBL:5 SPAMCOP:7 NJABLDUL:4 > > SORBS-DUL:5 CBL:7 SPFFAIL:8 . Total weight = 36. 12/18/2003 16:32:17 > > Q1cd609ef0252d469 Bypassing whitelisting of E-mail with weight > > >=20 (36) and > > at least 1 recipients (1). ... 12/18/2003 16:32:18 Q1cd609ef0252d469 > > Msg failed SPFFAIL (SPF returned FAIL for this E-mail.). > > Action=IGNORE. ... 12/18/2003 16:32:18 Q1cd609ef0252d469 Deleting spam > > from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to ... > > 12/18/2003 16:32:18 Q1cd609ef0252d469 Subject: > > =?iso-8859-1?b?QWRkIEluY2hlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBwYXRjaA==?= > > > > > > Best Regards > > Andy > > > > --- > > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, > just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe > Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, > just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe > Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
