| George A. Theall on 31 Aug 2005 02:49:04 -0000 |
|
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:33:37PM -0400, Eugene Smiley wrote: > George A. Theall wrote: > > Exactly. And thus, getting back to my original message, the notion > > of using SPF for whitelisting addresses is foolish if that's what > > AOL and Earthlink are truly doing. ... > How would a whitelist be of any use if you weren't sure that the MAIL > FROM hasn't been faked? Let me turn that around... What good are such whitelists when spammers are on one hand publishing SPF records and on the other injecting mail through means that SPF records claim are acceptable? > For AOL, Earthlink, Google, etc it makes sense to publish SPF to > protect their Trademarks. It hurts their reputation when their domain > name is forged. It makes sense for them to check SPF records because > it's possible to reduce the load on their mail infrastructure. It's > sound business either way. If only things were so black and white. George -- theall@tifaware.com Attachment:
pgpiX9dFRb845.pgp ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|