[RFCI-Discuss] RFC4408 aka SPF

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

> On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 03:45:23PM +0300, Alexey Lobanov wrote:
> > Yes, "+all" is provided as an example in the RFC text. But the nature of
> >  this "v=spf1 +all" seems to be exactly same as the nature of "IN MX
> > localhost". They are trying to fool us, to legitimize mail from every
> > trojanned home machine.

On 24.01.07 14:48, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
> They aren't fooling you.  They are telling the truth.  They authorize
> any computer to use their name.

> All examples you gave are equivalent to "v=spf1 all".

however existence of "+all" or similar records can lead in the future to
higher score assigned by spamassassin. Good.

I doubt any inteligent spam scoring system lowers the score because of
valid/matching SPF record.

I wonder how many untruths like this one are spread in the world. 

Maybe there FUDs are spread by spammers who realize that people and systems
using SPF is bad news for them.

I'm googling now for 'fud' and 'spf'. I'm annoyed by many people unrealising
that 'spf match' means completely nothing when talking about spam - seems
that there came the time denying those FUDs...

> At best you could argue that "+a +mx +all" is unnecessary use of
> resources, and thus should be banned.

positively scored :)
-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way.