>From the Captain Obvious category: Spammers using sender authentication too, study says Sender ID technology may not be effective at stopping spam, CipherTrust survey finds http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNspammerstudy_1.html
"A check of approximately two million e-mail messages sent to CipherTrust customers between May and July showed that only about 5 percent of all incoming messages came from domains that published a valid sender authentication record using Sender Policy Framework (SPF) or a newer standard, backed by Microsoft, called Sender ID. Within that 5 percent, slightly more is spam than legitimate e-mail, said Paul Judge, chief technology officer at the Atlanta company." > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka > Posted At: Friday, September 03, 2004 8:44 AM > Posted To: swynk > Conversation: SPF Warning > Subject: RE: SPF Warning > > ::concurs:: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Martin Blackstone > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 11:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: SPF Warning > > > > ::nods sagely:: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Chris Scharff > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: SPF Warning > > > > They're talking about Sender-ID of which SPF is a part (or > > SPF v2 is a part), but the underlying concern with regards to > > technical concerns, lack of experience and lack of consensus > > (not from that particular working group > > necessarily) apply to SPF. IMO > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin > > Blackstone > > > Posted At: Thursday, September 02, 2004 10:25 PM Posted To: swynk > > > Conversation: SPF Warning > > > Subject: RE: SPF Warning > > > > > > So when they talk about this, are they talking about just Sender ID, > > or > > > SPF > > > records, or are they both the same??? > > > Questions, questions. > > > > > > PS, I don't like the idea of MS licensing the caller ID > > technology at > > all. > > > It should be open source if it has to be called anything at all.... > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Chris > > > Scharff > > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 7:57 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: SPF Warning > > > > > > Well, looks like the Apache Software Foundation might have > > some issues > > > with Sender-ID licensing.... > > > > > > Apache projects unable to deploy Sender ID > > > http://apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html > > > > > > And they echo some of the same concerns I raised with SPF > > (part of the > > > Sender-ID standard)... man those guys are smart. > > > > > > > I have little > > > > confidence that folks who are unable to understand what a > > PTR record > > > is > > > > or that an Mx record must be an A record are going to choose the > > > correct > > > > settings for their SPF records. > > > > > > http://apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html > > > * We are also concerned by the rush to adopt this > > standard in spite > > of > > > technical concerns, lack of experience in the field, > > and a lack of > > > consensus in the IETF MARID WG. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
