David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 16:28 -0500, John Leslie wrote:
Seriously, we shouldn't let people think of CSV as an anti-spam
measure "like SPF only better".
I really don't see why not.
It isn't "like SPF"; and it isn't an anti-spam measure.
It isn't technically "like SPF"
in the way that it works, but when considered holistically it actually
achieves the same thing.
I certainly hope not!
It gives you a way to identify the host sending the the mail; that's it.
Actually, the host identifies itself. CSV checks for authentication
of that identity and whether that identity is authorized to send email.
(Opinions seem to differ greatly on whether SPF does either of these.)
No, it's not directly an anti-spam measure; but neither is SPF.
Again, opinions differ greatly. :^(
1) People shouldn't refer to it as an anti-spam meaure because it isn't.
2) It sets out to do a simple task. SPF sets out to do many tasks.
People need to understand what CSV does; and comparisons to SPF don't
lead to better understanding.
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>