Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}



--On October 16, 2006 10:40:13 PM -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
>
For various reasons, which you can easily google, I don't think spf (at
least in its present form) is a useful solution.

You think that SPF (where you ask what a sites expected outbound servers
are, to tell if you're getting it from an expected source) is broken,
but you think that looking at a site's list of *inbound* to identify
outbound servers is *sensible*??!?

I did NOT say spf was broken. I said I didn't think it was useful. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Stop erecting straw men from things I never said and then attributing them to me, OK?

You're entitled to your opinion. It would be nice if it was based on fact.

I won't respond to any more of this. The thread has gone on far too long already and for no useful purpose other than to browbeat an open-source product that does a very nice job of stopping spam, viruses and phishing scams. Those who have tested it know that it works.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Attachment: p7sWzaCVIJcbz.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature