Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6}

[Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu>]

--On October 16, 2006 10:40:13 PM -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> > >
> > For various reasons, which you can easily google, I don't think spf (at
> > least in its present form) is a useful solution.
>
> You think that SPF (where you ask what a sites expected outbound servers
> are, to tell if you're getting it from an expected source) is broken,
> but you think that looking at a site's list of *inbound* to identify
> outbound servers is *sensible*??!?
I did NOT say spf was broken.  I said I didn't think it was useful.  There 
is a HUGE difference between the two.  Stop erecting straw men from things 
I never said and then attributing them to me, OK?

You're entitled to your opinion.  It would be nice if it was based on fact.

I won't respond to any more of this.  The thread has gone on far too long 
already and for no useful purpose other than to browbeat an open-source 
product that does a very nice job of stopping spam, viruses and phishing 
scams.  Those who have tested it know that it works.

Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Attachment: _bin
Description: