Marc Perkel wrote:
Justin Mason wrote:
Marc Perkel writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds good,
I found this an interesting read about why SPF is ineffective:
http://en.hakin9.org/products/articleInfo/102
Excellent article.
SPF catches no spam - but does create false positives. It's less than
useless. It's dangerous.
Marc --
Please pay attention to what Matt wrote yesterday. Repeat: SPF is *NOT*
for catching spam. It works great at what we use it for in SpamAssassin
-- as an authentication mechanism, to detect legit ham and whitelist it.
This is what you use authentication mechanisms for: similarly, DK, DKIM,
and many other proposed standards are for authentication, not for
reputation. It *does* work well for that, in our experience.
If you want to rail against SPF as a bad anti-spam technology, perhaps a
personal blog would be a more appropriate venue?
--j.
Two things Jason,
First - I agree with you that SPF is totally useless at detecting
spam. I would say it is also useless at detecting ham.
Second - tell it to everyone here who is suggesting that SPF is a spam
solution of some sort.
SPF really has no useful function at all.
Preventing Joe Jobs. Past that, you're right. However, that's a very
useful function in and of itself. If you don't like it, don't use it,
but for god's sake please take your zealotry elsewhere. You'd fit right
in over in nanae.
--
Jay Chandler
Network Administrator, Chapman University
714.628.7249 / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Today's Excuse: The Dilithium Crystals need to be rotated.
