der Mouse <mouse(_at_)Rodents(_dot_)Montreal(_dot_)QC(_dot_)CA> wrote:
You appear to think that someone is going to be able to impose
something like SPF or its ilk. The closest you'll get to this is
some cabal like AOL/Microsoft/Yahoo/etc refusing to talk with anyone
who doesn't - in which case I for one will be quite firmly on the
"doesn't" side; A/M/Y/etc bring a fairly large negative value to my
mailbox and I would love it if they would go away.
They'll only impose it for _receiving_ email; they'll publish it for
sending, but you can ignore it if you want.
So what you lose by not publishing it would be the ability to send
email to their users.
SPF won't stop spam. CallerID won't stop spam. All they'll do is
make it a little more traceable, right back to the zombie which
handed the message to its outgoing smarthost - basically what we
already have now. It will put a dent in it briefly, which will be
trumpeted as a great success, a dent which will last just long
enough for spamware authors to update their products to send to
smarthost instead of direct to target MX; new code will roll out and
it will be business as usual.
Except that it will be easier for ISPs to block spam that comes
through their smarthost, and they'll have more interest in doing so as
the smarthost itself gets blocked for emitting spam.
Nothing but action by the providers hosting the zombie armies will
stop spam, and probably even that won't truly _stop_ spam (though if
the large providers were to somehow miraculously get a collective
clue and take effective action, they could reduce it to tolerable
levels).
Yes, that would be best. But in _this_ universe, they're mostly not
going to do anything until it costs them more not to act than to act.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg