On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02817.html
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02818.html
These are pointers to issues that have already been raised, are not
considered critical and in any case fall far short of the claims
made by Dean of Death of the Internet: News at 11.
Not critical?! I'm expecting deployment of SPF and Sender-ID to cause
significant problems for my site, and I neither publish nor
check these
DNS records. A protocol that causes problems for sites that do not
participate is seriously flawed.
Critical means that it will take down the net.
What you describe is called inconvenience. That is very different.
Sysop inconvenience is one of the motivations for MARID. It is much
easier to get onto the whitelist of a major ISP if you advertise your
IP addresses through MARID and it is much easier for them to
maintain their lists.
If you do not participate in MARID it has no effect on your
infrastructure. Other people may not be willing to accept your mail
but that is already a major issue for most ISPs.
Of course the fundamental reason for the flaw is obvious: a trivial
failure to apply the end-to-end principle.
End to end security has been widely discredited as brittle and
undeployable. It is a great objective but attempting to insist on
end-to-end or nothing has empirically been an abysmal failure.