* Andrew Pollock (apollock@debian.org) wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 03:58:08AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > I've had this discussion with Marco before, so I'll save you some time > > and summarise: > > > > SPF is not designed to solve the spam problem. It will not solve the > > spam problem. > > > > Some people have been touting SPF as a solution to spam (this *is* an > > application of the "solution in search of a problem" principle, more > > or less). > > > > Marco is ignoring all other applications of SPF, such as the ones it > > was designed for, and only paying attention to people proposing it as > > a solution to spam. > > > > So you mean to say that if debian.org started publishing an SPF record, did > it's forwarding in the SPF-compliant manner, and I starting using SPF to > filter my mail, it wouldn't stop the flood of virii riddled emails I've > been getting lately from honey@d.o.? (Side note, it's really pissing me off, > the SA score is negative a reasonable number, so it's well and truly getting > through Spam Assassin). Yes, it would. > I'm sure honey@d.o is not writing me these emails, and I certainly > constitute it as spam, and I would have thought that SPF would have > prevented this? Indeed, it will. It won't prevent the virus from sending from a non-SPF address, but the hope is many will adopt this. -- Eric Dorland <eric.dorland@mail.mcgill.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature