John Ferlito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:55:05AM +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>> I think you think SPF is protecting something other than what it is.
>>
>> SPF is designed to make sure that you have somewhere *real* to
>> associate the MAIL FROM part of the SMTP transaction with, and to
>> verify that this is correct with regard the declared domain outbound
>> SMTP server information.
>
> In my opinion SPF pretty much protects you from one thing, joe-job
> attacks. ie bounces where someone else has used your domain as the
> from address.
In the opinion of the designers it protects what I mentioned: the
authenticity of the SMTP MAIL FROM field, which has the effect you
describe as a side-effect.[1]
> Anyone that has had this happen to them knows that it can turn into
> thousands of emails in your mailbox in a very short period of time.
Oh, yes. Very unpleasant things to be on short end of.
> Unfortunately like most of the proposed SPAM solutions of this nature
> they are only really useful if everyone is doing it.
SPF is *NOT* an anti-SPAM solution, and is not marketed by the original
designers as being an anti-SPAM solution. This doesn't stop advocates
from claiming that it is, of course.
It might be a valuable part of a real anti-SPAM solution, yes, because
it provides an assurance that the SMTP FROM address is legitimate, so
enables reputation based filtering, but it does *zero* about SPAM
intrinsically.
> Which reminds me I should go set it up :)
Don't forget to turn it on to reject email that violates published SPF
rules, not just to publish your own records. :)
Regards,
Daniel
Footnotes:
[1] ...a potentially desirable side-effect, but not the sole purpose of
the protocol.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
