SPF on 9.4.1 now?
barmar at alum.mit.edu
Wed May 23 04:29:43 UTC 2007
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.
And are there any sites that reject mail when there's no SPF record? I
sure hope not, since some major companies and ISPs don't publish them.
So if a site only publishes the new-style SPF RR and not the old TXT RR,
receivers that only look for TXT records will simply treat it as if
there's no SPF.
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
More information about the bind-users