Greg A. Woods wrote:
>>That's simply not true. With ?all it makes a great greylisting /
>>sidlining tool.
>
>
> Actually it is 100% true.
>
> Besides, if greylisting actually works for your site then you sure as
> heck don't need SPF to facilitate it. SPF is rather pointless all round.
>
As long as you don't get constantly Joe Jobbed. If there would be
sufficient usable SPF setups, i.e. using "-all" and if sufficient sites
would parse SPF this abuse would come to an end.
There *is* quite some sense in using SPF. And don't tell me to go after
the spammers as long as you don't pay for it. Smaller companies can't
afford this luxury.
--
Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use robotrap@???
