From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932407AbWFLVy6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:54:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932208AbWFLVy6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:54:58 -0400 Received: from ns.firmix.at ([62.141.48.66]:10656 "EHLO ns.firmix.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932407AbWFLVy5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:54:57 -0400 Subject: Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter) From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: Krzysztof Halasa Cc: Gerhard Mack , jdow , davids@webmaster.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <193701c68d16$54cac690$0225a8c0@Wednesday> <1150100286.26402.13.camel@tara.firmix.at> <00de01c68df9$7d2b2330$0225a8c0@Wednesday> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: http://www.firmix.at/ Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:51:11 +0200 Message-Id: <1150149071.3107.19.camel@gimli.at.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.333 () AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 20:14 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Gerhard Mack writes: > > > Look at it from a mail admin's perspective. The bounces are now going > > nowhere instead of some poor user's mailbox. You have just cut the damage > > in half. > > If people doing SPF configured their servers to reject obviously > bad messages before the SMTP transaction is completed (rather than > generating a bounce later) it would IMHO do much more good. In general that's the only sane way to reject detected spam mails (for whatever the admin defines as "detected spam") - not only if you use SPF. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services