On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:11:43 +1300 (NZDT) Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, November 21, 2007 9:53 am, Jim Cheetham wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2007 10:52 PM, Steve Holdoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> All headers bar the last one can be extremely simply faked, so they are > >> pretty useless to use to identify the email's provenance. Because of > >> this, some ISPs are clamping down on this. The Sender Policy Framework ( > >> eg http://www.openspf.org/ ) is an attempt to cut down on spam. This > >> defines where an email has to be sent from to be treated as valid. > > > > Surely SPF doesn't cut down on spam, it merely cuts down on address > > spoofing? > > > > Admittedly a lot of spam uses spoofed addresses at the moment ... but > > there's not a direct relationship _per se_ between an address-spoofed > > message and a spam message ... > > > > -jim > > > > > > If I am overseas or just connected to a different ISP I still want to be > able to use my regular ISP based (eg paradise) email address, even though > I am restricted to using the foreign ISP's smtp server. In that case I am > neither spamming nor address spoofing, merely using email as the RFC > intends me to be able to. > > > -- > Nick Rout > But you're not restricted as above. The simpler alternative, which I'm sure paradise offer, is to use a web based email solution which, in effect, puts you back into their domain for both sending and receiving mail, and the problem goes away. Lets be honest, there aren't many of us sad people who carry a computer that would require this service, unless their company provided for this eventuality - road warrior vpn or something similar- and you user their corporate servers. Note that I'm trying to be practical, not correct here. The world was a far more niaive place when those rfcs were written, and spam wasn't a problem. Steve
pgpZvZQEwUv8O.pgp
Description: PGP signature
