Am I missing something here? Could SPF not only be ill advised, but also detrimental as a whole? Inquiring minds want to know.
The issue of spam going through large ISP's mailservers could become a big issue. But the neat thing is that the spammers are really shooting themselves in their feet, so to speak. If those mailservers get listed to the point where a significant amount of legitimate mail gets caught, the ISPs are going to have to start doing something about this. If they block the zombies, everybody wins.
I can't imagine how SPF (used in a weighted system) could be detrimental in this regard. Yes, it may help the spam get through -- but it almost certainly would have got through anyways. And, for every spam that gets through, SPF will help another 10-20 or so legitimate E-mails *not* get caught. Since SPF could only be detrimental for E-mails close to the weight that you block spam at, it ends up being good until the spam-to-legitimate-mail ratio gets very high. But if 20% of the E-mail a large ISP's mailserver is sending out is spam, they have a serious problem that they need to deal with.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers.
Declude Virus: Catches known viruses and is the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection.
Find out what you've been missing: Ask about our free 30-day evaluation.
--- [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.
