On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 17:55, terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com wrote:
I agree to move on, but 1 quick note re adoption, those that implement spf
will suffer significantly
less backscatter, because backscatter from the wrong mta will be rejected.
And you may be right spf etc may cause non-spf implementors to receive more
backscatter.
But all this will likely serve to expedite the adoption of spf, as more
people want to be like the
other guy who has little/no backscatter.
This Back-door issue will improve commensurate with adoption of a
solution, as spammers are not often the direct source of this traffic,
but instead comes from sites at the end of a relay that would otherwise
not wish to send this traffic. Few solutions have an impact that
exceeds adoption. That a solution does not TOTALLY prevent a problem
without 100% adoption and therefore is a reason to dismiss such for
consideration seems absurd.
To say this is an unrelated problem, or one to be solved differently,
seems to overlook the relationship of the information needed to solve
each issue separately. This problem can be related to the information
of the mail channel, or to solutions for the forwarding problem created
by Sender-ID, as example. Of course, the reaction to not being allowed
in the Front-door, there is always the Back-door being the Return-Path
now being ignored. Both doors need defended as closing one, will
increase the traffic through the other.
-Doug