| Eugene Smiley on 21 Mar 2004 23:20:02 -0000 |
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff McAdams wrote: > Now, maybe its reasonable to say that SPF is a good idea, *if* used > in conjunction with SMTP AUTH, to allow relaying to authenticated > senders. But I can't say that SPF is a good system to implement as > a blanket statement. - From http://spf.pobox.com/intro.html: What SPF Is Not * SPF is not the Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem. Nor is it meant to be. Its goal is to stop forgery, not to stop spam. * SPF is not a magic bullet that will end all spam as we know it. It's still worth a shot; what do we have to lose? * SPF does not mean that SPF adopters will suddenly start rejecting mail from you. [...] * SPF is not for pessimists who think that no technical solution can ever end spam. * SPF will not solve the spam problem all by itself. It will solve it in connection with things like RHSBLs. * SPF is not a perfect solution that will make 100% of all spam go away forever. I'd be quite happy with 98%. * By default, SPF does not verify individual sender usernames; it only validates the domain name. Per-user validation is possible with a bit of tweaking. In other words, it's only meant to be a small piece of an overall spam reduction strategy... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-nr2 (Windows XP) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAXiNr6QPtAqft/S8RAqaXAKDb3unP9pC22IKpJuiGMLLG+awK4gCgvUhf 92X8gi3dqzHM7XIN+UFYmhQ= =m8MD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Attachment:
smime.p7s
|
|