On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:15 +0100, Philipp Morger wrote: > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 13:19:48 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > been logged from the same host and signed by the same PGP key. If > > somebody sends a silly message sounding to be from me (yes, this sadly > > has happened by some sick persons) I can quite easily claim it was not > well, you sound like a candidate for propagating SPF in your DNS :)
Which I have intended to do for a number of times but still have not
done for the simple fact that SPF does not support IPv6.
At least I have contacted the mailinglist a couple of times already
and tried to give them my input ("ip6:[2001:db8::/32]") but:
http://spf.pobox.com/mechanisms.html#ip6
8<---------------
ip6
Could someone with IPv6 experience please provide some input?
--------------->8
Says 'nuff... fortunately SA and especially Clam weed out most of the
crap that would want to enter my mailbox, as for the sending part, as
long as the receivers don't implement it, it still doesn't make sense.
For that matter PGP signing emails is *way* better than SPF. One can,
with SPF, still spoof anybody else in the same domain, not that I trust
the few other folks that do have an account in that domain but still ;)
Also it is so handy when mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED], don't have to tag that
sign button, just mail and fire away, where ever one is.
I guess that having a requirement of signed emails on mailinglists, thus
that every mail intended to be distributed onto the mailinglist is pgp-
signed by some address that is also subscribed to the list, could quite
well be a way out against virusses that harvest addresses and simply use
pairs of these addresses to correctly bypass subscription filters, eg:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/magma/current/msg00653.html
I guess most people who know the name "Margaret" knows that she doesn't
have the virus, nor anything wanting to spam...
Greets,
Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
