|
All Archives /
aussie-isp /
2006-04
|
<<< Date >>> | |
| Permanent Link | ||
|
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:49:24 +1000
From: Craig Sanders To: Reid Cc: aussie-isp, aussie-isp Message-Id: <20060420014924.GD12751@taz.net.au> In-Reply-To: <1145495986.27287.4.camel@dragonslair> References: <20060418224557.GA12751@taz.net.au> <000301c66362$96bc5e70$2522630a@t22> <20060419051843.GA12158@taz.net.au> <1145495986.27287.4.camel@dragonslair> Subject: Re: [Oz-ISP] SPF Records |
No followups recorded. |
|
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 11:19:46AM +1000, Reid wrote: > On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 15:18 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > wrong. SPF's avowed purpose is to be an anti-forgery tool. > > coincidentally, that makes some spamming methods more difficult(*), > > but that is not SPF's purpose. > > http://www.openspf.org/howworks.html > > Please read the text under the title "The Rationale: SPF Explained". try reading it yourself. it doesn't claim that it can prevent or block spam, whenever it mentions spam it makes it clear that SPF's purpose is to enable detection of forgery - for example: "SPF aims to prevent spammers from ruining other people's reputations. If they want to send spam, they should at least do it under their own name." in other words, it claims to be an anti-forgery tool, not anti-spam. it couldn't be stated more explicitly than that - "aims to prevent spammers from ruining other people's reputations". how anyone gets from a clear and unambiguous statement that SPF is an anti-forgery tool to the erroneous belief that SPF claims to be an anti-spam tool is beyond any logic. craig -- craig sanders <c a s @ t a z . n e t . a u (part time cyborg) ---- email "unsubscribe aussie-isp" to m a j o r d o m o @ a u s s i e . n e t to be removed. |
|