spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Maybe simple question

2003-12-22 17:27:02
--On Monday, December 22, 2003 8:53 AM -0500 Edward Ned Harvey <spf(_at_)nedharvey(_dot_)com> wrote:

I still think sender verification is the answer to stopping spam.

There are all sorts of things that can be done, that make spf a sender
verification scheme, including sasl, vpn, etc etc.  But unless you add
these things to spf...  SPF is not sender verification.


I would agree that SPF is not sender verification; it would probably be better described as "domain verification".

As a domain owner, I realize that having SPF is just a first step, but I feel strongly that it is a good and necessary first step. For example, if I control all the outgoing mail servers, I can easily add SASL to them, or some other means to make sure that the outgoing mail address belongs to the correct person. If I don't do this, at least the abuse reports will come back to me and I can do something about it.

So, I agree that "more needs to be done" BUT I don't agree that SPF should do more. If it grows any more complex than it is now, it comes dangerously close to not being adopted.

I strongly believe that multiple solutions are required to stop spam. I strongly disagree with anyone who says "There is one right answer to the spam problem and it is X". (I'm not sure if this is what you meant to say or not...)

--
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?¡