Re: Unusual spam recently - hummm - postprocess

[Azazel <azazel@azazel.net>]

<snip from='Michael Stone' date='2004-06-04 18:49:05 -0400'>
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:38:02PM +0100, Azazel wrote:
> >Fair enough, but it's up to people like us to push it, surely?
>
> There's a line between advocacy and zealotry. At this point I'm not
> convinced that it's worth the effort. It's fine for a home user to
> implement it quickly but it's not so easy for a lot of large
> organizations that currently allow people to send mail from offsite
> locations. The problem is even bigger when you consider that a lot of
> places are blocking outbound smtp except through their own
> relays--which
> makes the "just implement smtp auth" argument a bit harder to swallow.
</snip>

Oh, you're right.  I have SPF records for my domains, but I haven't
enabled it on my MTA, 'cause I'm not sure whether it's worth it yet.  I
do feel a degree of guilt about that though: SPF does have vulnerabili-
ties, but it's as good a solution as I've come across, and, if I just
trust to my Bayesian filter to keep my inbox clean, I'm not really
helping.  I was reading pobox.com's faq the other day, and the
impression that I got was that somebody somewhere is going to have to
make an effort at some point.  That point, however, is likely to turn
out to be something we can identify with hindsight and explain with
statistics.

J.
--
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+
  www:        http://www.azazel.net/
  public key: http://www.azazel.net/home/az-gpg.txt
  geek code:  http://www.azazel.net/home/geekcode.txt
+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+