[Mimedefang] Deadline for SPF records

[Daniel Taylor]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Les Mikesell wrote:
| On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 12:55, Daniel Taylor wrote:

|
|
|>Say your potential client sends the same e-mail from the same location
|>and your spam filter sidelines it because it triggered a couple minor
|>SA rules and was from a blackholed IP range.
|
|
| Well, that would be my own choice, wouldn't it?
|
|
|>Now your potential client thinks the mail went through, you know nothing
|>about it, and the business opportunity may well pass permanently because
|>the potential client thinks you just aren't interested in the business.
|>They are almost definitely offended by the non-response.
|>
|>Which scenario works better for you?
|
|
| The latter, because I can apply my own valuation to the filtering and
| check every message if I consider it worthwhile.  If it happens at
| the transport level, individual consideration no longer applies.
| For exactly this reason, I never discard spam at the transport
| level but tag it with MD in a way that lets individuals choose
| their own filtering level.
|
| The place where it might be useful is in catching viruses that
| forge the sender address, though.  We've recently seen at least
| two that came through before the scanners recognized them so
| you can't really count on detecting them by content.
|

As the recipient it is your choice.
I would also note that if you are philosophically opposed to rejecting
e-mail messages you can have your SPF filter operate in Tag-only mode.

Much depends on who you have to work with.

- --
Daniel Taylor          VP Operations            Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtaylor at vocalabs.com   http://www.vocalabs.com/        (952)941-6580x203
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBGj2I8/QSptFdBtURAjkzAJ9XyHIPIumZtHBlhO4M+4lxUwpmswCeIICO
BM2eZANvE3rG6/CaU+Ms5eo=
=OXII
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----