5 May
2006
5 May
'06
8:08 p.m.
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:34 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
Kenneth Porter wrote:
On Friday, May 05, 2006 3:45 PM -0700 Marc Perkel <marc@perkel.com> wrote:
SPF breaks email forwarding.
While SPF is not a panacea, it does improve spoof detection.
An even better guarantee is a digital signature.
Sending over IMAP doesn't provide any anti-spoofing assurance that authenticated SMTP doesn't already provide.
But SPF breaks email forwarding. That's not something that I can live with.
Isn't that why SRS exists?
-- Karl Latiss <karl.latiss@atvert.com.au> Atvert Systems