Marc Perkel wrote:
Second - tell it to everyone here who is suggesting that SPF is a spam solution of some sort.
Oddly enough, the people who seem to be most adamant in stating that SPF is a spam solution are those like yourself who consider it useless. Those who find it useful seem to think it's just one tool of many.
SPF really has no useful function at all.
Only if you insist that its only possible function is to stop spam by itself.
Plenty of people have made points in this thread about how a positive SPF result can be fed into a decision-making process that can help classify mail.
Your railing about how SPF is useless because it doesn't stop spam sounds like this:
"Coffee is useless because it won't get you from sleeping in bed to awake and alert. Worse, it's dangerous, because if you have someone pour it on your head to wake you up, you'll get burned." Then ignoring suggestions to use an alarm clock to get yourself out of bed, then drink the coffee to make yourself more alert, thereby getting something useful out of it without getting burned.
The only real difference is that, with SPF, some people actually have advocated pouring coffee over your head. But others have figured out that, if you want to use coffee, drinking it is the way to go.
-- Kelson Vibber SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>
