On 01/24/2018 01:58 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
I'd rather not think about the manhours I've wasted this year on SPF.
The guy at Evotec.com, among others, who thinks rejecting
for SOFTFAIL is a perfectly valid anti-spoofing strategy and
doesn't blink when pointed to RFC 4408 sec 2.5.5.
Vendors who's first response is:
"Our LEGIT spam....errr bulkmail is ending in your Junk. Response
#1 in our binder is you MUST list us in your SPF record."
Dig, dig, dig maillogs. All emails using Envelope From properly
so SPF is a waste of everyone's time.
The Internet is very slow to change. It takes a large force like Google
to improve things slowly over time. They are doing good work in the TLS
and browser encryption area. SA could be the large force that helps
improve the mail standards like DMARC -- SPF + DKIM with a little extra
on top.
Records we included to ours, where the vendor makes a typo in
THEIR SPF record on a Friday night. Or decides to add 9 sub-includes.
Either way our record suddenly returning PERMERROR and we
have to get someone in, and boot vendor off the island on a Sunday.
I have a script that checks all of our customer's SPF records for syntax
problems and too many DNS lookups based on pyspf just like
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html does so I can correct it or
notify them immediately.
Endless hours explaining to campus clients, what SPF is and why
If SA all around the world says the same thing you are telling them then
they will have to listen and fix their problem or remove their SPF
record which is better than having an incorrect one.
it is not a good primary strategy to solve Junk mail issues
The only good thing I have to say about SPF, is it seems to
be a permanent employment program for people who are
otherwise useless.
--
David Jones
