-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Dienstag, 21. März 2006 21:35 mouss wrote: >> I'd follow. I even think there are more spammers with good spf >> than legit' people with spf. > > Could also be. SPF still doesn't help against SPAM, just against > forgery. Where SPAM often tries to forge, but thats another story. > >> one thing we know: spammers don't care if spf breaks >> forwarding... > > We have to adopt. As somebody mentioned in another thread: there > was a time, when open relays where considered a good thing. Then > came SPAM. > > mfg zmi SPF is just another tool to help against spam/phising/virusses, but that is it. It won't or can't stop them, and it wouldn't surprise me if actively rejecting SPF-fails has the similar effects as strict RFC-enforcement or double reverse DNS-lookup. Lots less spam and lots more false positives.
Kind regards, Sander Holthaus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEIIgwVf373DysOTURAvNHAKCbMYrYRR5Ei7Zrwbi+sDsEb4ru0ACdEu9Z cmlVUP4MFEXf4bjtL6Avw28= =o24w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
