In reading Vernon's stuff, my thought is that *he thinks* SPF is selling
itself as the ultimate solution to spam. It's not.
However, someone made the point earlier that the site and the draft for SPF
seem to imply the message that "This will help reduce spam". Perhaps that
can be made clearer, like "This will help reduce spam in the long run,
along with many other efforts."
I think of SPF as being "necessary but not sufficient" to stopping spam.
Before spam really reduces, it will probably have to be shifted around a
lot. If SPF reduces costs for admins and shifts the costs of spam to
others not yet using it, that provides incentive for those to use it too.
Most people in the industry believe that several solutions will be needed
to solve spam, not just one big solution. Perhaps the spf site could make
some reference to this. Not a huge deal... I am just thinking aloud here
about how to address those concerns that SPF is the FUSSP, the holy grail,
when it clearly isn't, but is "worthy of pursuing" anyway, IMO.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)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_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡