[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SPF (was: Re: PERSONAL xxxx - KTA)

> On 7/3/07, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> >forgeries are often spam, but that doesn't change the fact that SPF is an
> >anti-forgery system and NOT an anti-spam system.
> >
> >blocking forgeries is desirable to many, whether the forgery is spam or 
> >not.

On 18.07.07 15:23, Martin Marcher wrote:
> I agree with your point, be it spam or not, I am at a point where I
> think if a domain has a SPF record and I get a mail from a host that
> is not allowed to send I should reject it because it is not legit. It
> can't be otherwise the sending host would have been listed in the spf
> record (Yes I know this is somewhat restrictive).

there are more possibilities about failing SPF recors. SPF fail can be hard
(reject the mail imediately) and soft (be careful of the mail!)

Rejecting hard SPF fails at SMTP level is perfectly valid.

Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@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.
Windows found: (R)emove, (E)rase, (D)elete

Reply to: