mouss([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:22:05PM +0100:
> Bill Weiss wrote:
>> t??ba([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:00:54AM +0300:
>>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:14:25 +0100
>>> "Martin Strand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Of course, they expect you to setup your servers properly with
>>>> SPF/DKIM/etc but you probably already know about that.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>> But why yahoo do that? What is yahoo?? Why? Why we have no problem with
>>> the others "largest email providers" like gmail, live etc? Why we are
>>> addicted to do SPF etc to deal with yahoo? Is not for yahoo to make
>>> theirs servers more reliable like others? Or does not yahoo have brains
>>> and material capabilities to do that?
>> Yahoo is betting that they are big enough that you're willing to jump
>> through some hoops to get to their users. Given the responses to this
>> thread, it looks like that bet is working out for them.
>> If Google started prioritizing the GSPF (Google-enhanced SPF) signed email
>> coming in tomorrow, do you really think that most of us wouldn't set it
>> up?
>
> as far as I know, GSPF = "Guess SPF" which guesses that your server is
> authorized by using the rDNS. for example, if your server is
> foo.example.com, then it is probably ok to send mail on behalf of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with no need to set SPF records. as a result, GSPF works
> "naturally".
I can't believe I did that...
I was using "GSPF" as an example of some new as-of-yet-unheard-of
anti-spam system. I didn't think to make sure it didn't exist :)
Sorry for the confusion. I should have come up with an absurd name
instead of something that would easily be taken.
--
Bill Weiss
In short: Don't build a house of cards and then try to outlaw the wind,
build a house of stone and enjoy the fresh air.
-- Alexander Schreiber, on the Full-Disclosure mailing list
about software
