DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter Pipeline
2 edits | What's the point?
Why add another layer of "authentication" simply because it's tied to a corporate name? What happened to SPF records?
SPF is open, free and barely used (correctly by servers and host records). MS pushing this type of authentication will only further annoy DNS admins by making sure it's "done right" fall on the shoulders of SBS 2003 owners...the core people that still send mail out as "some-company.local"
Spam is a less a problem of preventing it, and more a problem of people thinking they configured their end correctly.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| said by DaSneaky1D  :Why add another layer of "authentication" simply because it's tied to a corporate name? What happened to SPF records? SPF is open, free and barely used (correctly by servers and host records). MS pushing this type of authentication will only further annoy DNS admins by making sure it's "done right" fall on the shoulders of SBS 2003 owners...the core people that still send mail out as "some-company.local" Spam is a less a problem of preventing it, and more a problem of people thinking they configured their end correctly. SPF has the old "chicken or the egg" problem I think.
We use it on all our domains and only Google actually checks the SPF record. Out of thousands of emails being sent across the country from our mail servers, I only see SPF queries from Google on sent emails (gmail). Sad.
It almost makes it completely worthless.
I hope because this has the Microsoft name behind it, more people will take notice and/or MS will create an easy way to integrate it with Exchange. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| I see your point. I rarely have custs that ask to have a SPF record added to their domain, but those that do often have more problems than it's worth.
Of note, I had one cust that, due to his record, stopped receiving bounced emails because the receiving server simply dropped it.
Sure, maybe with integration with Exchange the spam problem may decrease, but I'm awfully doubtful. So many other areas that need to be secured, this is almost like pushing the processing load off to something else.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
