Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Dan Langille wrote:
>> These are inaccurate conclusions. SPF information helps to draw a
>> conclusion. Consider it a points system. Get so many points for a
>> might be, none for a definitely. Get enough points, you're spam.
>> SPF is most wisely used in conjunction with other information to
>> reach a conclusion.
> The whole thing is evil technology, as I have previously pointed out,
> which is a reason to boycott it. I regularly get my email blocked by
> other community members because of it.
> But the application you are describing here is equally stupid. You are
> saying that even though it is -- per SPF record -- OK to send
> @postgresql.org via other hosts, you get penalized in your scoring
> system for doing so. So in spite of *no* indication that some email is
> spam, you are (partially) rejecting it. What sense does that make?
Which is a far clearer way of say what I just wrote in my current
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2006-11-19 14:21:14|
|Subject: Re: SPF Record ...|
|Previous:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2006-11-19 09:22:10|
|Subject: Re: [CORE] SPF Record ...|