On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 03:42:23PM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > > "no SPF record == bad, evil spammer." > > > > Yuck! You sure about that!?! > > deliberately chosen to go against the flow, and I can deliberately > choose not to accept mail from them. I respect toad.com for taking a
note that it says "can". the theory is that people who want to stop
spoofing will join into whatever the technology is to stop spoofing, and
so therefore if you don't have an spf record you are naturally suspect.
it's up to the receiving admin what that means. the general consensus
is that "no SPF record == more scrutiny", but at some point could mean
"no SPF record == block message", much like the way some people do now
if the envelope from doesn't have an MX or A record associated with it.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"What the hell is this? For crying out loud, somebody throw a pie!"
- Peter Griffin on Family Guy
pgpNwrQjWM5B3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
