SPF on 9.4.1 now?

Clenna Lumina savagebeaste at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 21 02:05:59 UTC 2007


Sten Carlsen wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
>> In article <f2ubk5$kuj$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
>>  Sten Carlsen <ccc2716 at vip.cybercity.dk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The answer that you "just" upgrade your client-SW is probably not
>>> going to make much difference. Most people will not be like those
>>> on this list, they will be more ordinaire guys.
>>>
>>> I wonder how many will be able to upgrade an off the shelf windows
>>> program? At least as I use spf, I use Thunderbird with the
>>> spf-extension. While I have access to the source, I will not use
>>> that effort, spf is not THE spam tool as pointed out, but in my
>>> experience it does help in sorting things out. If only spf-RRs are
>>> published, I will publish my own in due time when my DNS-provider
>>> has upgraded enough to support them(I will also continue publishing
>>> txt-RRs until no longer useful) and I will use them when "somebody
>>> else" has upgraded my applications. This will mean a break in the
>>> usefulness of spf.
>>>
>>
>> I think the expectation is that SPF is mostly checked by servers, not
>> individual end users.  So ordinaire [sic] guys don't need to worry
>> about it, they just need their ISPs to update their SMTP servers.
>>
> I see this differently, I use the extension made for Thunderbird, I
> assume that quite a lot of other people do. It will only function with
> the end user mail agent, it has no use in servers.
>
> My reasoning for using this is that my ISP does not care and check,
> so I see this as a way to make the separation between mail and spam a
> little easier.

Except when spammers themselves start publishing SPF records... I think 
in actuality SPF creates a false of security, because spammers can use 
it just as anyone can.

-- 
CL 




More information about the bind-users mailing list