Re: SPF = Sender Policy Framework

From: Morely 'I drank what?' Dotes (morelydotes_at_spamblocked.com)
Date: 09/29/04

  • Next message: Noi: "Re: Fedora Core 2 DVD burning speed ?" 
    Date: 29 Sep 2004 05:30:33 GMT

    Meanwhile, as our hero sinks slowly in the West, on 28 Sep 2004,
    jfh@avondale.demon.co.uk (John F Hall) wrote in news:cjch3i$a7r$1
    @avondale.demon.co.uk:

    > In article <4158a1dd$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>,
    > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
    >>In <cj757u$6ju$1@avondale.demon.co.uk>, on 09/26/2004
    >> at 07:27 PM, jfh@avondale.demon.co.uk (John F Hall) said:
    >>
    >>>No. As it's likely that current viruses have false sender addresses
    >>>nothing is gained by rejecting them,
    >>
    >>That's a non sequitor.
    >
    > Rubbish.
    >
    > Is what way is rejecting better than dropping?

    In the event that the sender is actually using his ISP's MTA (wittingly or
    not), eventually that ISP may notice the rejections. For example, SWIP.NET

    Granted, it may take eons... 

    -- 
Solid Web hosting, responsive support, effective spam-blocking.
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Brad Jesness FAQ: http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/
  • Next message: Noi: "Re: Fedora Core 2 DVD burning speed ?"