From: | "Larry Rosenman" <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "'Dave Page'" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "'Joshua D(dot) Drake'" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "'Peter Eisentraut'" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "'Andrew Sullivan'" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
Subject: | Re: [CORE] SPF Record ... |
Date: | 2006-11-19 21:33:08 |
Message-ID: | 002401c70c22$549b8c50$66c8a8c0@SURGIENT.COM |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
Dave Page wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> Until someone devises the 'perfect solution to spam', I would think
>> that a series of 'less then perfect ones' would at least help combat
>> it ...
>
> And that's a perfectly fine idea, except when one of those partial
> solutions can have undesirable side effects. In the case of SPF we've
> heard of at least two so far:
>
> 1) When used without ?all, those scoring messages using SPF may end
> up blocking legitimate messages from non-listed servers.
>
> 2) SPF may be used as a mechanism for DNS attacks.
>
> Regards, Dave.
Just to add some more to the debate:
http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html
http://www.circleid.com/posts/spf_loses_mindshare/
And others.
I respect Suresh a LOT from the anti-spam community,
and I've REMOVED my SPF records. I don't think we (PostgreSQL.org)
should put an SPF record in place.
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-11-20 01:56:58 | Re: [CORE] SPF Record ... |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-11-19 20:59:53 | Re: [CORE] SPF Record ... |