Marc Perkel wrote: > > > Matt Kettler wrote: >> >> Mark, SPF isn't an anti-spam technology. Anyone who says it is, is an >> imbecile. SPF is an anti-forgery technology. Those who continue to think >> of SPF purely as a spam control technology are doomed to be disappointed >> and/or endlessly make posts like "SPF can be evaded by spammers, they >> just publish their own SPF". Duh. >> > It's anti spam technology. The reason people use it is because > spammers are forging email addresses. No, it's an anti-forgery technology that people use because spammers are forging email addresses.
It is an anti-forgery technology that has relevance to spam control, but this does not change the basic fact that it is NOT an anti-spam technology. It is anti-forgery. Period. Again, anyone who thinks otherwise is doomed to be disapointed because they missed the actual point of SPF. Let's face it, the fact that SPF currently works as a spam control method is purely a byproduct of spammer's current habits. Spammers can simply adapt and start using their own domains to send from. Fortunately, that would make doing things like RBL'ing on the domain in the From: address practical. However, again, that's a byproduct. In the long run, SPF looses any value as an anti-spam technology, but does create a new one as a spinoff. In the long term, SPF has by far more implications on phishing, viruses, and other things that are dependent on forgery for social engineering reasons. >> That said, your comment about blocking no spam is pure horsehockey. I >> have plenty of spam matching SPF_FAIL and SPF_SOFTFAIL. >> >> I've also have had no FPs from SPF, except websites like hire.net that >> insist upon forging my domain as the envelope sender when generating >> emails to my HR staff. Actually, MAIL FROM, RCPT TO, From: and To: are >> all identical. Brilliant. >> > Yep - they are using "normal" email technology. No they're not. They're falsifying mail headers. Something last I checked was actually illegal in the united states under CAN-SPAM. > That's supposed to work. That's what SPF breaks. Good. > It also breaks email forwarding. No it doesn't.. besides, mail forwarding is a "broken by design" technology. > >> And SRS does not break the ability to do conditionals, because the true >> envelope from address is still a part of the rewritten envelope from. >> You just need to make your conditionals match the SRS version. >> >> >> > > You have to rewrite all your conditionals to support the broken > technology. No, you have to rewrite all your conditionals to support the fix for the broken technology of mail forwarding.
