Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}
gabriel rosenkoetter <[email protected]> Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:41:19 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.incidents |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:39:40PM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote: > For various reasons, which you can easily google, I don't think spf (at > least in its present form) is a useful solution. And for various reasons, which several parties have enumerated here, neither is using MX for this. SPF is at least intended to do the job you're misusing MX for, and it's far leass likely to give you a false positive. Why wouldn't you use SPF as a towards-ham weight? -- gabriel rosenkoetter [email protected]
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFNELP9ehacAz5CRoRAihGAJ9awK/cxBZimumcZgo1go5LiPYdMwCgmNh+ t5Rltb7F86wjxf1tlbeKwFg= =lcJo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----