> That's probably going to end up being one of the biggest advantages of > SPF. Whitelisting business partners just based on domain. Right now if > I want to reliably white list [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd have to match against > IP address also. With SPF you can just rely on the partner to have > their SPF records correct.
Where's the reliability if that partner's "correct" SPF record includes ~all or ?all and you've whitelisted their domain. > What I don't get is everyone is saying SPF sucks because it isn't going > to stop all spam. Define everyone. That isn't what I've been saying and I don't believe that's what D�j� said. >Well XP SP2 isn't going to stop all worms but it > still has a lot of good anti-worm features to it. Does XP SP2 break RFC complaint applications? >All SPF is going to > do is make the From field somewhat legitimate. The From field is 'somewhat' legitimate today. How much more or less the >From field is under SPF is one of the points of contention IMO. >So at least we can say > when it comes from @aol.com, or @microsoft.com, we know that those > companies have authorized it at a basic level. Who is "we"? A typical end user? They'll have no idea whether or not a company has published such a record, what the parameters are of that record, of any filtering their mail host does on inbound messages based on that record and n other criteria. How much more credible or reliable should a message which passes the filters be considered by the recipient? _________________________________________________________________ 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.
