Please don't feed the trolls, they just spew unsubtantiated "facts",
unverified "actions" and request you to provide counter examples to
dispute their claims.
Thanks
Terry
PS I too once tried to reason with trolls, its a waste of bandwidth
reasoning with woodheaded people
David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 01:27 +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
It's not as if the SPF project wasn't being very explicit about the
forwarding problem. If you think that the forwarding problem is being
brushed under the carpet, then you're no less ignorant of our efforts at
pointing out that problem than those people who allegedly try SPF without
thinking first, get burnt, and then refuse "to try anything like it
again". The issue is clearly explained in the website FAQ and in the
specification.
No, the website FAQ massively downplays the problem. I'd even go so far
as to call it downright dishonest. It says "You'll have to switch from
forwarding... to remailing". But that's not really true. What it should
say is that you'll have to wait for the whole of the rest of the world
to make that switch. It's not about what _you_ do yourself when
forwarding.
It also gives a broken procmail hack which will cause bounces to get
lost, and which might well cause mail loops too.
It points out that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. But
SPF seems to be wanting to smash the frying pan too. That kind of damage
just isn't necessary.
I've explained the flaws to people who have implemented SPF without
really thinking it through for themselves, and I've seen their reaction
when they've stopped doing it after realising the problem. Some of them
are _definitely_ going to be reluctant to jump on the next bandwagon.
--
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085