m. allan noah wrote:
On 6/6/07, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Guy Hulbert wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 17:43 -0700, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
>> That said, don't use +all as an absolute indicator. There may be
>> good domains that do a +all too.
>
> This seems to make SPF a complete waste of time. Just block those
> domains and force the lazy admins to fix their records.
SPF is one of those things that can't possibly work:
http://homepages.tesco.net./~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/smtp-spf-is-harmful.html
there are some very good points in there. too bad they are hard to see
past all the vitriol and absolutism. it would be nice if it was
condensed down to fewer, demonstrable points.
The obvious one is what this thread is about. People making money
sending spam will go to the effort to follow these rules even if it
means rolling out new domains faster than they can be blacklisted. That
was predictable from day one, and the rest of the scheme is just
inconvenience for everyone else and it prevents mail from working as
designed with user-controlled forwarding.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
