On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:33:44AM -0600, wayne wrote:
|
| In somewhat related news, the /. discussion migrated to NANAE. See
| the subject of "Sender Permitted From (SPF) anti-spam technology".
|
|
http://www.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&threadm=bvWdnTa-4J7Zp0KiRVn-gg%40whidbeytel.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3DbvWdnTa-4J7Zp0KiRVn-gg%2540whidbeytel.com
|
A big hand to Wayne for representing us in that thread: explaining the
basics to people who didn't bother to read the web site, debunking the
myths for the Nth time, and with infinite patience deconstructing the
straw-man version of SPF that people attack.
Vernon Schryver reminds me of this Arthur C. Clarke quote:
If a distinguished but elderly scientist says something is possible, he
is almost certainly right. If the same distinguished but elderly
scientist says something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong.
Back in November Brad Templeton said SPF was a bad idea and would never
work. He gave three reasons.
1) it breaks .forwarding
2) it breaks traveling mailmen
3) it's a bad idea. so it'll never work. so it's a bad idea.
The first two were legitimate. The last one made me laugh.
If Vernon's argument is that SMTP+SPF is inferior to a spam-free SMTP
without SPF, I would certainly agree. But "plain SMTP" ceased to exist
ten years ago. It got replaced by SMTP+spam. I would rather have
SMTP+SPF than SMTP+spam.
-------
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_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡