You mean http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt.
Very nice idea to perhaps avoid some percent of spam. The only problem: It has nothing to do with the reality out in the world and net respectively. It's only shifting the job of blacklisting ip's to domains. Sit back a while and try to think about a realistic number of email addresses/domains today ... ... and you will forget any kind of such academic solution. I'm getting some hundreds of spams every day - all flavor of spam, really! And I know some customers of the compnay I'm working for with nearly the same amount. Now my answer is a combination of a couple of tools integrated into the mailer daemon we're using today and a weighting scheme of all at the end: Today I'm dealing with about 0,1 % false positives/negatives. So I would say the answer to all methods should be some reasonable regular updated mixture of them. It's a war not a problem! And I think if somebody is tryning to write some RFC for that the same would be obsolete before he's able publish it. Christian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yves Junqueira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <debian-isp@lists.debian.org>; "Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Which Spam Block List to use for a network? > SPF is a proposed standard. > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt > Even Microsoft seemed to drops its CallerID proposal in favor of SPF. > Check spf.pobox.com > > > On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:45:40 +0200, Niccolo Rigacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm searching for RFCs which > > propose effective ways to block spam and viruses. > > > > -- > Yves Junqueira > www.lynx.com.br > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
