[RFCI-Discuss] Re: RFC4408 aka SPF

[Andrew Rendle]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> I'm annoyed by many people unrealising that 'spf match'
>>> means completely nothing when talking about spam
> 
> On 28.01.07 14:23, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> An SPF PASS has always one effect:  Bounces won't hit any
>> innocent bystanders.  You can accept a PASS on probation 
>> and bounce it later.  IMO a nice feature.
> 
> for ~all or +all discussed here, bounce can reach innocent bystanders...

In the case of +all, the domain of the from address has explicitly
stated that any host may send email using that domain name.  Since the
domain is saying "treat mail from any host using this domain name as
authorised", the extra bounces that may result are something that the
administrator(s) of that domain should expect.
Having to deal with those bounces is a consequence of their action in
using a +all SPF record, just as those who don't have a working
abuse at domain address have to deal with the fact that they may find their
mail being rejected because of an RFCI listing.

Andrew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFvn+6IgbxbMfeCKkRAmK6AJ9EO1BGKSa8J8TPAe8VII+sdiGmQACeJNc8
wbk/bPlacKiO4W6jHlDyNG4=
=gtH6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----