On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:01:52 +0000 Kurt Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM +0000 or thereabouts, Ciaran | McCreesh wrote: | > We've identified one very widely used application that interprets | > SPF records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by | > how the specification says they should be interpreted. In this | > case, SA is entirely reasonable in its behaviour -- SPF makes the | > classic incorrect assumption that spammers won't abuse the system. | | Ciaran, you obviously do not understand the issue, nor do you know | what you're talking about.
No, I do, you're just missing the point. | The impact is that some users happen to send mail in a way that ends | up looking very similar to a spammer sending an email with a forged | return-path. And, because of the way SA has chosen to interpret this, | those valid, non-spam emails get assigned a positive spam value, even | when the mail administrator has asked them not to. And why do you think it does that? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
