US financial services industry group endorses SPF, so most banks, credit
unions, brokerages, etc. publish an SPF record.
MAAWG: "At the very least, senders should incorporate SPF records for their
mailing domains".
Austrailan DoD Recommends SPF
Google.com, GoogleMail.com, Gmail.com,
Comcast.net,
Verizon.net,
Frontier.net,
Charter.com,
Microsoft.com, Hotmail.com, Live.com,
AOL.com
All publish SPF records as well.
It is simply becoming unnecessary to accept email from domains which do not
publish an SPF record to let receiving domains know the systems that are
authorized to transfer email for them.
And doing so cuts into spam significantly.
--------------------------------------------------
From: <junkyardma...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 7:51 PM
To: <postfix-users@postfix.org>
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
Yahoo has ulterior motives? They wish to push their domain keys.
Others probably likewise have ulterior motives.
Do you also oppose SPF, and if so what is your motives?
--------------------------------------------------
From: "mouss" <mo...@ml.netoyen.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 7:29 PM
To: <postfix-users@postfix.org>
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
junkyardma...@verizon.net a écrit :
Some do not accept email from domains whose owner does not publish the
servers they authorize to transfer mail for their domain.
Then it's their problem. Please don't revive the old spf thread. spf has
fans and opponents.
$ host -t txt yahoo.com
yahoo.com has no TXT record
$ host -t txt mail.com
mail.com has no TXT record
$ host -t txt outblaze.com
outblaze.com has no TXT record
...
(same with "spf" instead of "txt").
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Sahil Tandon" <sa...@freebsd.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 11:53 AM
To: <postfix-users@postfix.org>
Subject: Re: Postfix.org SPF
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:45:39 -0700, junkyardma...@verizon.net wrote:
How about publishing an SPF record for postfix.org.
Why?
--
Sahil Tandon <sa...@freebsd.org>
