W B Hacker wrote: > Marc Perkel wrote: > > *trimming this - it has gotten overlong... > > (Peter Bowyer) > >>>> Granted that a spammer could forge received headers. Most don't. >>>> >>>> >>> Eh? Have you looked at many spam samples lately? Or in the last 10 years? >>> >>> >>> >>>> I'm >>>> thinking that not bouncing forwarded email is better than the few spammers >>>> who sneak through. >>>> >>>> >>> Not spammers - forgers. Providing a way to defeat an anti-forgery >>> mechanism wouldn't be my choice. But hey, if that's what you want.... >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I'm thinking that forgers would be less of a problem that false >> positives produced by forwarded email. I'm more concerned about false >> positives which are far more common under SPF. >> > > Marc, > > bass-ackwards logic. spf was intended to aid in reducing forgery, and - > regardless of claims, cannot do that perfectly anyway. > > You can 'compromise' the utility of some other tool, but further > compromising spf forgery-reduction capability is worse than simply > ceasing to look at it at all. > > Grind the sharp-edge flat on an axe and go pound nails with it. > > Or sand. > > Either way, it makes a poor hammer. The balance is all wrong. > > Bill > >
SPF is for the most part useless. I'm trying to figure out SOME use for it. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
