On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:56:13 +0100 Daniel Roethlisberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think - mayby I'm wrong - this thread (SPF +/-) should move to the spam-list. Ueli > Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-10T00:00]: > > First of all it is broken or breaks many valid applications. e.g. > > forwarding does not work correctly and user that are forced to use > > some smtp proxy will have issues too. > > And then there are those who still believe open relays are the right > thing to do, because mail has always worked that way in the past... > > SPF does break verbatim forwarding, yes, unless forwarders do some kind > of envelope return path mangling (eg, SRS). Call it "taking > responsibility for your outgoing mail". Actually, I don't think this is > such a bad idea in general, even if it is not a perfect solution. > > > Additionally it is useless. Currently 90% of SPF verified traffic is > > spam. > > Where did you get those numbers from? > > > SPF does not prevent spam it is a user verification system and it does > > that very bad. Use crypto instead. > > SPF is *not* designed to prevent spam, it is designed to prevent domain > forgery in envelope return paths. Different story. It certainly does > no such thing as user verification. You might have misunderstood some > of the concepts behind SPF. > > Cheers > Dan > > -- > Daniel Roethlisberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > GnuPG Key ID 0x804A06B1 (DSA/ElGamal) > _______________________________________________ > swinog mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog -- "The software said it requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux" _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
