On 08.12.20 02:02, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote: > Obviously I disagree. Thankfully SPF w/ -all allows second order > receivers to know that I have not authorized the first order receiver to > re-send email on behalf of my domain name.
So in that case you are against servers supporting SRS since it breaks your idea of how email should work? This discussion really reminds me why I never liked this broken by design concept and never will. Yet I am forced to support it, because the big fishes decided otherwise. Can someone point me to statistics about how effective SPF is compared to other antispam measures? Spammers using phished/hacked accounts don't care. Spammers with their own domains just add SPF records and can easily include (hacked) third party systems? Phishers just use mail0p.org with correct SPF records to foil targets or just use 'From: "Example <i...@example.com>" <hac...@example.org>' since modern MUAs decided it's a good idea to not show mail addresses anymore... Perhaps I should just start looking into botany. Regards, Thomas Walter -- Thomas Walter Datenverarbeitungszentrale FH Münster - University of Applied Sciences - Corrensstr. 25, Raum B 112 48149 Münster Tel: +49 251 83 64 908 Fax: +49 251 83 64 910 www.fh-muenster.de/dvz/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
