I would think that SPF would be fairly easy to implement. There are libraries available (http://www.openspf.org/Implementations).
I'm just looking at this as a more secure (and lazy) way to whitelist a domain. ;) Is there something I can do to help move this along? Sam Clippinger wrote: > I don't see why this can't be done. Once SPF support is added, it > should be pretty trivial to add a flag to control what spamdyke does > with it. > > -- Sam Clippinger > > Eric Shubert wrote: >> Eric Shubert wrote: >> >>> Hey Sam (et al), >>> >>> I just came across a situation where I wanted to whitelist a vendor >>> (dyndns.com), so I requested their rDNS names. They cordially replied >>> that they use various servers, and gave me their SPF record as >>> reference. Then a little light went on. Spamdyke could do this for me. >>> >>> How about a spf-whitelist option, similar to the other whitelist >>> options, that would read the SPF record for the sending domain and >>> automatically whitelist according to the SPF rules found. This would >>> effectively say, "whitelist whatever servers are listed in the domain's >>> SPF record - I'll trust their SPF record". >>> >>> I know this isn't trivial because of the variety of ways that senders >>> can be specified in SPF, but I think the feature would be very useful. >>> >>> I would guess that most users would want to implement this only for >>> certain domains. I'm not sure if turning it on globally would be ok to >>> do or not. I'm thinking probably no, but it might be a nice option for some. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >> I know you have SPF listed under TODO LATER in TODO.txt, but it's listed >> along with some other schemes which I believe are more involved to fully >> implement. I see this more of an enhancement of spamdyke's whitelisting >> capabilities than an outright SPF implementation. FWIW. >> >> -- -Eric 'shubes' _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
