On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 03:41:03PM -0500, Dan Langille wrote:
> These are inaccurate conclusions. SPF information helps to draw a
> conclusion. Consider it a points system. Get so many points for a
> might be, none for a definitely. Get enough points, you're spam.
> SPF is most wisely used in conjunction with other information to
> reach a conclusion.
A bad conclusion, poorly supported by evidence that is costing
everyone on the Internet.
The problem, in my view, with SPF is that it doesn't actually solve
the authentication problem, _plus_ the costs it imposes are borne by
_everyone other than_ the person whose behaviour SPF is supposed to
be trying to prevent. Note that last bit: SPF is not free -- not
even if you aren't using SPF but happen to perform ANY queries (and
at least 2/5 of the Windows clients in the world do). But none of
those costs are actually paid by the would-be spammer.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Users never remark, "Wow, this software may be buggy and hard
to use, but at least there is a lot of code underneath."
--Damien Katz