Greg Connor wrote:
> Regarding complaints that SPF is "too complex" ... I wonder if it would
> help or hurt the cause to have some recommendations for a "minimal"
> implementation of SPF. This might address concerns such as Eric
> Allman's "must be doable in rules"...
I can only wonder at Eric's sudden need for "simplicity over
everything", given the sendmail canto that "complexity is neccessary".
(The preface of "Sendmail, Third Edition" likens Sendmail config to the
Gordian knot, and then goes on to say why this is perfectly acceptable
due to the power and flexibility that it provides:
http://safari.oreilly.com/1565928393/sendmail3-PREF-SECT-2 if you have
O'Reilly Safari)
But to be honest SPF isn't all that complex *once you understand it*.
Even the macro expansion isn't particularly tricky; Terry states that
that took about 3 hours in python, and it took me about the same to code
it in PHP. And I'm not exactly the world's best coder...
And even then, spfd allows processing with nothing more that a socket
connection.
> Something like, "If the receiving mail system does not support certain
> mechanisms, such as exists, include, redirect, or anything containing
> macro expansions, the result should be "unknown" and processing should
> stop.
Include/redirect are essential, IMHO, and skipping 'exists' is just
lazy. I see no benefits to weakening the protocol at this point; I'd
rather concentrate on the forwarding issues.
Wechsler
-------
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?¡