-----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 Dean
Anderson
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:48 PM
To: Gordon Fecyk
Cc: IETF MXCOMP (E-mail)
Subject: Re: So here it is one year later...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Gordon Fecyk wrote:
...since the first rumblings of talking about a working
group, and there's
been no press on MARID since the breakup of said working
group. No press
from Microsoft, no press from the SPF crowd, no press from anyone.
The working group broke up because of unresolvable technical problems.
Get specific Dean, the unresolvable technical issues was the the PRA is broken,
NOT SPF. So it is SenderID's PRA
component not its SPF component that caused the technical failure.
And the senderid venture was doomed to failure anyway because of the M$ IPR
crap.
And no instructions included on how to compile, install, or
use what little
software is available out there. Except for the few commercial (and
expensive) offerings by GFi.
If you aren't a developer of SPF, probably you shouldn't be using SPF.
Wrong again. And the proof is that there are many domains that implement SPF,
successfully.
What gives? Has the whole world lost complete interest in
stopping spam? Is
spyware really the next big threat to the Internet that the
US Congress is
looking at legislation for it but not bothering with spam anymore?
No, the world has just realized that SPF doesn't work, and won't stop
spam, nor stop forgery.
SPF never pretended to stop spam. It does prevent forgery, it does not prevent
phishing, but then no technical solution
will ever solve phishing as long as MUA's like Outlook show "pretty names" for
everything, suppressing the try
underlying identities of everything from email addresses to attachment types.
In its present form, SPF does nothing except
create more opportunities for email abuse, and promotes spam and email
abuse. Most people are interested in things that work. Fewer are
interested in making things worse.
I cannot see how you come to that conclusion, (especially not on your lack of
facts you presented). It does however
well illustrate that there was/is an effort to scuttle SPF. Mostly by those
with alternative products. Which is
interesting, because if SPF was not a threat to the alternative products, they
wouldn't try to scuttle SPF.
Terry Fielder
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000