SPF record
D. Stussy
spam at bde-arc.ampr.org
Sun Nov 2 22:00:33 UTC 2008
"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.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list