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

--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/

p7sNnmEatV4Us.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature