From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: SMTP+SPF (was: [9fans] Re: new release?) Message-ID: <20040226200346.GM66917@cassie.foobarbaz.net> References: <5650c97bcaa9d357e77eb3396c1eb368@collyer.net> <3281.199.98.20.107.1077754455.squirrel@wish.cooper.edu> <1077757753.1991.177.camel@rea> <20040226104154.GL66917@cassie.foobarbaz.net> <1077817415.3851.136.camel@zevon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1077817415.3851.136.camel@zevon> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i From: Christopher Nielsen Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:03:46 -0800 Topicbox-Message-UUID: fba1667c-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 05:43:36PM +0000, Dave Lukes wrote: > > Oh, goody! Just what the world needs: more non-working options. spf works for a specific sub-class of the problem. nothing currently available solves the whole problem. > I _am_ the admin, in this case (I'm an SA in the Real World), > and my policy is: I don't want crap that doesn't help me. you're not the only admin. i am also an sa in the real world. you choose your policy, and i'll choose mine. > I can kill most spam with spamassassin, > so unless spf kills _all_ spam, who cares? and spamassasin is horribly inefficient and soaks up tons of resources, which is why i don't use it. just personal preference. -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin