"Matus UHLAR - fantomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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.
