Nico Erfurth <masta@???> writes:
> Sorry, but IMHO SPF does more harm than good.
I have very much the same feeling about it. I have a setup, where all
the mail leaving the corporate network goes through a non-transparent
proxy (running Exim) which scans the mail for viruses.
Well, it wouldn't look good if we sent viruses via e-mail while
reporting a new virus outbreak to our listeners as morning news,
would it? :)
A nos moutons: I of course accept any sender from the local network
and even though there aren't many visitors who send e-mail from here,
I barely can imagine all this hassle with rewriting sender@domain to
sender#domain@???, taking care about security issues (risk of
creating an open relay which even SPF authors admit to exist) and then
managing possible bounces and other DSN messages, vacation replies etc.
No. And there is one more reason. I don't like people that tell me
that crap about eggs and an omelet. That's just not much for an
argument to me. It can't break things if it is to be good.
Now... take a look at
http://spamikaze.nl.linux.org/. A brief look
will be enough. It's simple. It's ellegant. It's efficient. It works.
When they/we/you manage to set up a net of Spamikazes, all exchanging
data with each other and doing it without any centralized hub (point
of attack/DoS/failure) it will be deadly efficient. This is the way
to go.
--
Łukasz Grochal | Give an infinite number of monkeys typewriters
lukie [at] berdyczow.org | and they'll produce the works of Shakespeare.
PGP key, SSL cert etc. at | Unfortunately, I feel like I'm reading all the
http://www.berdyczow.org/ | books where they didn't. /internetisshit.org/
