On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 01:04:06PM -0600, Phil Howard wrote:
| ... we have to fight off the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" crowd
| who think everything created in the 1980's is just fine.
I think what we have here is a classic case of the Kuhn paradigm shift.
The most vocal objectors to SPF tend to be those who, in one way or
another, built the existing system and are comfortable with it.
Developers of mature MTAs eg. Sendmail and Postfix should be expected to
take a conservative stance with respect to any new technology, and
rightly so: that's their role. It's our job to disrupt them by giving
the world a better way to to do things, and let the market decide.
One of the architects of the current SMTP model wrote to me with his
list of objections. His criticisms were all valid, but when I got to
his conclusion, that "this will never work because I say it won't", I
couldn't bring myself to agree. But the point of the story is, in his
.signature, he had his email address encoded with "to figure out my
email address, take my first name, leave off the NOSPAM, " at "
something " dot " "com".
This is someone who built the current email infrastructure, and he has
to resort to "NOSPAM" notation to hide from spammers? And he says SMTP
isn't broken.
-------
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?¡