Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?

[Brad Laue <brad () brad-x com>]

On 2009-11-24, at 1:27 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:50:54 EST, Brad Laue said:
> > > maintained. I'm unclear as to why mail administrators don't work more 
> > > proactively with things like SenderID and SPF, as these seem to be far 
> > > more maintainable in the long-run than an ever-growing list of IP 
> > > address ranges.
> >
> > There's a difference between maintainable and usable.  Yes, letting the remote
> > end maintain their SenderID and SPF is more scalable, and both do at least a
> > plausible job of answering "Is this mail claiming to be from foobar.com really
> > from foobar.com?". However, there's like 140M+ .coms now, and  neither of them
> > actually tell you what you really want to know, which is "do I want e-mail from
> > foobar.com or not?".  Especially when the spammer is often in cahoots with the
> > DNS admins...
>
> identify framework with trust anchors and reputation management are not
> things that spf or pra actually solve. spammers can publish spf and
> senderid records and in fact arguably have more incentive to do so if it
> can be demonstrated that your mail is more likely to be accepted on the
> basis of their existence.

True, but wouldn't a blacklist of SPF records for known spam issuing domains be a more maintainable list than an IP 
block whitelist?

(I'm no doubt missing something very obvious with this question)

Brad