You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Stuart Gall <st...@otenet.gr> on 2004/10/06 19:48:48 UTC
SPF Records
Hello,
Does SA 3.0.0 check for the presence of the SPF record in the DNS of
the originating domain ?
I read that 21,000 domains now use an SPF record, so we should be
checking for it right?
Stuart Gall
------------------------------------
Klien bottle for rent
Enquire within.
------------------------------------
Re: SPF Records
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 08:48:48PM +0300, Stuart Gall wrote:
> Does SA 3.0.0 check for the presence of the SPF record in the DNS of
> the originating domain ?
If you have Net::DNS installed and the plugin loaded (it is by default).
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"A: You mean it's not due on Friday?
T: No, it's due two Mondays from now ... <slight pause>
A: Where's the remote?!?!?" - Alan and Theo about an OS1 Assignment
Re: SPF Records
Posted by Vivek Khera <vi...@khera.org>.
On Oct 6, 2004, at 4:03 PM, Wess Bechard wrote:
> Is there an SA rule to decrease valid SPF mail server's scores yet?
I think it does something like -0.001 points. and that's about all it
should ever do. check the archives for massive discussion both here and
in the SPF lists, I'm sure.
SPF is not an anti-spam tool, it is an anti-spoofing tool. Spammers
can and do have valid SPF records. What you want, if anything, is to
penalize SPF failures as spoofs.
Vivek Khera, Ph.D.
+1-301-869-4449 x806
Re: SPF Records
Posted by Wess Bechard <sp...@eliquid.com>.
Is there an SA rule to decrease valid SPF mail server's scores yet?
On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 15:59, Oscar Retana wrote:
> The actual number is about: 140.000 domains
> This only includes those manually registered at:
>
> http://spftools.infinitepenguins.net/register.php
>
> Check also: http://spf.pobox.com/
>
> More important than the current percentaje of domains publishing SPF
> records is the fact that most important domains around the world
> (commonly used to forge email addresses) *do* have SPF records now.
>
> - Oscar.
Re: SPF Records
Posted by Oscar Retana <os...@gridshield.net>.
The actual number is about: 140.000 domains
This only includes those manually registered at:
http://spftools.infinitepenguins.net/register.php
Check also: http://spf.pobox.com/
More important than the current percentaje of domains publishing SPF
records is the fact that most important domains around the world
(commonly used to forge email addresses) *do* have SPF records now.
- Oscar.
Re: SPF Records
Posted by "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <da...@prime.gushi.org>.
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Stuart Gall wrote:
> Hello,
> Does SA 3.0.0 check for the presence of the SPF record in the DNS of the
> originating domain ?
>
> I read that 21,000 domains now use an SPF record, so we should be checking
> for it right?
Out of how many domains total? The numbers impressive. The percentage
isn't.
-Dan
--
Amerikanskaya firma Transceptor Technology pristupila k poizvodstu komputerov "Personal'ni Sputnik"
--Snap, "The Power"
--------Dan Mahoney--------
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Site: http://www.gushi.org
---------------------------
Re: SPF Records
Posted by j o a r <jo...@joar.com>.
On 2004-10-06, at 19.48, Stuart Gall wrote:
> I read that 21,000 domains now use an SPF record, so we should be
> checking for it right?
The numbers are far greater than that. You can check the statistics of
domains that use SPF and that have manually registered that they do
here:
<http://spftools.infinitepenguins.net/register.php>
I would bet that the number of domains using SPF but not bothering to
register would be even greater.
j o a r
RE: SPF Records
Posted by kaiser suse <ei...@mainphrame.com>.
Dave Duffner - NWCWEB.com said:
>
> Last we heard from this (or another, poss. MailScanner) List
> was that SPF's are now a dead issue. Some locations are using it
> and trying to keep it alive, but even MicroWreck backed off their
> stance in supporting it.
Quite mistaken, the attempt by microsoft to hijack the standard failed,
and SPF is alive and well, in it's original form, sans the
patent-encumbered microsoft xml extentions.
RE: SPF Records
Posted by David Brodbeck <gu...@gull.us>.
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:00:19 -0400, Dave Duffner - NWCWEB.com wrote
> Last we heard from this (or another, poss. MailScanner) List
> was that SPF's are now a dead issue. Some locations are using it
> and trying to keep it alive, but even MicroWreck backed off their
> stance in supporting it.
What I heard was that discussions broke down over Microsoft's patent licensing
terms, which were incompatible with most open-source licenses. While their
patent doesn't cover SPF itself, it covers some other related things they
wanted included in the standard.
Development seems to be continuing independently. If you want to follow along
you may want to subscribe to the spf-discuss mailing list.
Re: SPF Records
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:00:19PM -0400, Dave Duffner - NWCWEB.com wrote:
> Last we heard from this (or another, poss. MailScanner) List
> was that SPF's are now a dead issue. Some locations are using it
> and trying to keep it alive, but even MicroWreck backed off their
> stance in supporting it.
SPF != SenderID
SPF is still alive and doing well, lots of well-known domains support it.
SenderID (the SPF/MS "next generation" bit) is in question, but is very
likely not going to go anywhere now IMO.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"The Beatles used more hair products then Jesus." - Rusty McGee
RE: SPF Records
Posted by "Dave Duffner - NWCWEB.com" <we...@nwcweb.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Gall [mailto:stuart@otenet.gr]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:49 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: SPF Records
>
> Hello,
> Does SA 3.0.0 check for the presence of the SPF record in the DNS of
> the originating domain ?
>
> I read that 21,000 domains now use an SPF record, so we should be
> checking for it right?
>
> Stuart Gall
Last we heard from this (or another, poss. MailScanner) List
was that SPF's are now a dead issue. Some locations are using it
and trying to keep it alive, but even MicroWreck backed off their
stance in supporting it.
Great idea, some flaws to be worked out, totally abandoned.
Nothing new for anything related to MS.
Apparently not even worth the effort to turn on/code in or
the milliseconds of processor time. Rather pathetic, looked like
a reasonable baseline solution.
David J. Duffner
VP Operations
NWC Corporation
NWCWEB.com
============================================
NWCWEB.com - Your Design & Hosting Solution!
Featuring Ensim Pro/Linux Servers, Hosted
Accounts, Web Design and e-Commerce services
NWC Corporation - Global e-Pay Solutions
============================================
--
Message scanned by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission intended for the
specified destination and person. If this is not you, this
e-mail must be deleted immediately. www.nwcweb.com