SPF PASS (was: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/")

Carl Hutzler wrote:
 
> Is this use of SPF flawed?
[...]
> If the [connecting IP] = [SPF record] then "trust it
> more/whitelist"

It's perfectly possible for a spammer to get a PASS.  You
wouldn't whitelist a spammer.  But it's impossible for a
spammer to pretend to be me, he'd get a FAIL (in my case).

Unless I'm this spammer of course.

> valuable reverse MX records which cover well over 95% of
> the email traffic on the internet today.

Is that a guess ?  95% is a rather high number.

> Perhaps SPF should be updated to have the above logic.

You can use it this way.  But whitelisting a PASS only
because it's a PASS is no long term strategy:

    "v=spf1 +exists:{ir}.comcast.blackholes.us -all" 

> Back to my day job :-)

Be careful with mail from these comcast IPs, bye, Frank