Le 03-12-15, à 23:38, Edward Ned Harvey a écrit :
Greg and I have come a long way in understanding each other in a couple
emails. As it turns out, I do not have a misconception of what spf is
or
how it works, or how smtp works or anything -- I had a misconception
about
what spf *wants* to do.
I agree with you, SPF should not pretend to be made to stop spam. It's
made to stop email forgeries.
I do feel that sender verification is vital to stopping spam -- without
sender verification, we still have no way of tracking down a spammer
after a
spam attack. (Those who immediately say "sasl" here -- read on to the
bottom.) Granted, the pool of people under suspicion after a spam
attack is
smaller using spf than it is without -- the people under suspicion
might be
reduced from 6 billion to 1 million, or even a few hundred thousand.
But if we had sender verification, the number of people under suspicion
after a spam attack is reduced to one, maybe a few -- The true user,
and the
people who would be able to crack his/her password or whatever
authorization
mechanism is in place to identify him/her.
I am willing to concede that spf will reduce spam if widely adopted.
But
that's not good enough for me. I intend to stop spam. And I believe
that
the sender verification proposal(s) are no more complex than spf, with
greater benefits.
I'm interested, do you have any links?
Best,
GFK's
--
Guillaume Filion, ing. jr
Logidac Tech., Beaumont, Québec, Canada - http://logidac.com/
PGP Key and more: http://guillaume.filion.org/
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ëù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com