I have not the foggiest idea what CSV is trying to do. I think the
description is dreadful and I think we have wasted too much time on
it already.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Matthew
Elvey
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 1:15 PM
To: Tony Finch; MXCOMP
Subject: Re: CSV (Crocker's draft) good! (evaluation, big suggestion)
Perhaps I'm slow, but I look at this thread and I can't tell whether
most folks like CSV+NBB. Greg C seems to like it.
Compared to SPF, it's orders of magnitude less effort to adopt. It
doesn't provide accountability as granular as SPF, which is
partly why
it is easier to adopt.
Do we need, e.g. a Wiki table with names in column 1 and contender
acronyms along the top that folks can fill in?
E.g.
Proposal
Participant SPF NBB FSV MMark ...
John Smith - + +-
Joe Blow + - ?
Legend (needs work)
+++Favorite
++they like it
+think it has promise
-
--
---fatally flawed
An entry could be a link (e.g to JohnSmith#MMark) that explains the
person's thoughts more fully.
On 5/6/04 6:38 AM, Tony Finch sent forth electrons to convey:
Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> wrote:
The problem with this argument is that CSV lacks the early adopter
self-interest motivation of SPF: preventing joe-jobs.
SPF doesn't prevent joe-jobs until people start using it to reject
email.
If I publish a '-all' in my SPF record, isn't that going to stop
joe-jobs from every server implementing SPF?
It doesn't stop collateral spam from systems that don't do
SPF checks. SES acheives this without co-operation from anyone else.
Well, fundamentally it breaks (for a small subset!) that
all mail must
be delivered
It's an astonishingly bad idea to compromise the reliability
of email to
protect it from spam, especially since breaking it is unnecessary.
I guess you were asleep for the discussions here showing that this is
obviously false, because our intent is to break email for the
emailers
that are forgers (typically spammers). Plus what John Kyme just said.