[NCLUG] spam help

Bob Proulx bob at proulx.com
Sun Sep 10 17:23:45 MDT 2006


Jake Edge wrote:
> Sean Reifschneider wrote:
> >This link seems to be a few printed pages which say "It breaks forwarding".
> 
> 'breaks forwarding' is a pretty powerful argument ...

Personally not having forwarding is not affecting me at all.  If it
did I could turn off SPF for my domain.  It is controllable
individually by domain.  Within a domain it is individually
controllable by email address.

But I don't see a need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Just
because SPF does not solve all of the problems of email, and no one
has ever claimed that it did, does not mean that it does not have
value.  SPF is simply a tool in the toolbox.

This all sounds good all around, right?  But still detractors want
*me* to stop using it, by having use of SPF stopped entirely, probably
because it does not work for *them*.  If they don't like SPF then they
don't need to use it.  However SPF is working well for me.

> some of this may be described better in an LWN article that I wrote:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/187736/
> i think that SPF means well, but i don't think it actually solves any 
> problems and it breaks standard email practice of 20 years or more ...

But in your own article you say:

  The main benefit for domains that publish SPF records may be a
  reduction in the blowback from a 'joe job' (a spammer uses a victim
  domain as the sender on a large amount of spam, some of which
  bounces, leaving the victim to deal with all the bounce messages)e.

That is certainly a big problem and if SPF helps with the problem at
least a little bit then it is worthwhile.

I think the best argument to counter the anti-SPF points is that if
you don't want it then don't use it.  Call us folks driving in the HOV
lanes the fools if you like but I will enjoy it while it lasts.

Bob



More information about the NCLUG mailing list