--On 7 May 2009 07:10:36 -0700 Marc Perkel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Granted that a spammer could forge received headers. Most don't. I'm > thinking that not bouncing forwarded email is better than the few > spammers who sneak through. And if a spammer is forging received lines > that might be detectable if they don't do a good job of it. I think it > would be a useful feature if it were in there. That depends what you're using it for. If you're using SPF for whitelisting trusted domains, then you're going to have to keep a close eye on the spam that gets through. When the spammers catch on, you'll have to stop using it. On the other hand, you could say that if none of the hosts have an SPF match, and the sender domain uses -all, then reject. That would get you some wins with no losses. In the long run though, this would just be another ratchet in the arms race and we'd finish in a place where spam is harder to detect. Eventually the spam engines will catch up, though this rule would still catch some residual spam. I don't understand the tone of argument in this thread to date. It seems that every suggestion Marc Perkel makes is met with a barrage of misrepresentation. It's not a bad idea. It won't on its own fix the spam problem, but it can have some utility. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ -- ## 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/
