SPF record

[D. Stussy]

"Matus UHLAR - fantomas" <uhlar at fantomas.sk> wrote in message
news:gekbim$1da4$1 at sf1.isc.org...
> > Res wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
> > >
> > >> Well, a negligible number of people may have a very important
position
> > >> as like a businessman in international trade or a special researcher
in
> > >> scientific area. So i did not set a SPF record in DNS aside from the
> > >> obvious things (e.g., mailing list manager's domain) ;;
> > >
> > > We have lawyers and doctors, and none of them have ever had any
issues,
> > > and I doubt an international business or scientific would be using
> > > shared host server :)
>
>
> On 02.11.08 22:30, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
> > That's local issue. It's hard to explain in detail. Anyway i would like
> > to say that SPF is somewhat dangerous to use as anti-spam trick.
>
> yes, since SPF is an anti-forgery and not anti-spam tool

Technically, domainkeys is also an anti-forgery tool.

SPF is not dangerous.  It can break mail forwarding - so systems that
receive forwarded mail need to be aware of that.  Domainkeys doesn't have
that problem, but is more difficult to implement.

PS:  Anyone who advocates using a TXT-RR for SPF is more than 2 years behind
the times and should not be given any respect.  The SPF-RR (type 99) has
been supported in DNS for 2 years now.  The TXT-RR was a transitional
mechanism ONLY and is therefore depreciated.