On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
|
| ...some objections to SPF have come from people who
|
| 1) get stuck trying to define spam, and because they can't define it,
| claim that nobody else can either, and so cannot imagine how to
| solve a problem they cannot frame;
|
| 2) champion a personal definition of spam, and attack technical
| solutions because those solutions do not match their definitions;
(1) and (2) are a problem of definition. SPF avoids the quicksand of
definition entirely. SPF is merely an *extension* of SMTP which
*closes a security hole*; it improves the veracity of sender addresses
among consenting hosts. It also fights worms and viruses; it also
fights forgery. Right now lots of our customers misconfigure their
home machines as pobox.com, and send bounce messages using From:
postmaster(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com(_dot_) The double-bounces end up in my
mailbox. SPF
helps solve this problem also. If SPF works against spam, what a
happy coincidence!
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg