On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 01:09 +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
No other proposal, be it BATV or DKIM, requires significantly less massive
changes to infrastructure in total than SPF.
No.
BATV/SES requires no changes to the way the infrastructure works; it can
be entirely unilateral. The implementor immediately gets the benefit of
rejecting unwanted bounces. Third parties _may_ benefit if they're using
something like SMTP callouts, or if BATV/SES is coupled by a matching
SPF record and a stunt DNS server -- but it's not a requirement.
DKIM provides end-to-end authentication by cryptographic methods and
unless it still has the silly bugs that DK once had, it can be
implemented without any infrastructure changes either -- only the
participating sites need to do anything.
What makes you suggest otherwise? Can you describe in detail the massive
changes to existing practice which you think the alternatives would need
us to make?
--
dwmw2