| 1 |
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:01:52 +0000 Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:54:13PM +0000 or thereabouts, Ciaran |
| 4 |
| McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
| > We've identified one very widely used application that interprets |
| 6 |
| > SPF records based upon how they're used by spammers rather than by |
| 7 |
| > how the specification says they should be interpreted. In this |
| 8 |
| > case, SA is entirely reasonable in its behaviour -- SPF makes the |
| 9 |
| > classic incorrect assumption that spammers won't abuse the system. |
| 10 |
| |
| 11 |
| Ciaran, you obviously do not understand the issue, nor do you know |
| 12 |
| what you're talking about. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
No, I do, you're just missing the point. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
| The impact is that some users happen to send mail in a way that ends |
| 17 |
| up looking very similar to a spammer sending an email with a forged |
| 18 |
| return-path. And, because of the way SA has chosen to interpret this, |
| 19 |
| those valid, non-spam emails get assigned a positive spam value, even |
| 20 |
| when the mail administrator has asked them not to. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
And why do you think it does that? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 26 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 27 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 28 |
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 |
Archives