Andrew P. Kaplan wrote: > It's a slow friday so I doing too much reading. I have missed the posts on > SPF. What's the current feeling on this list and people starting to use SPF > > http://spf.pobox.com/
I like it, but of course haven't found the time to implement it. There has been a discussion on spam-l re: SPF for the past week. Like anything else, it is not a cure-all but should help--especially once large providers begin using it. It seems like it relies on those providers being honest--not just using "v=spf1 ptr" which says any host in the domain is valid for sending mail. Someone on the postfix list noted AOL was using it, but I'm not seeing the same results they are: ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> aol.com txt ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; aol.com, type = TXT, class = IN Anyone see a TXT record for aol.com? Meng Weng Wong just posted this to the postfix list regarding using the patch for postfix or implementing SPF via a policy server: > I would appreciate people using the policy server for now. > > It uses the reference Mail::SPF::Query implementation, which you will > have to download separately from CPAN. If the specification changes, it > will be easier for people to update a perl module than rebuild postfix. > > http://spf.pobox.com/downloads.html -- Chris Scott Host Orlando, Inc http://www.hostorlando.com/
