On Sunday 11 January 2004 10:59 pm, Dr. Ernst Molitor wrote:
SMTP were broken if it had been designed to be spam-safe - but take it
as a fact: it hasn't. Saying SMTP is broken because it is not safe
against spam mails is equivalent to noting that cars are broken since
you can end up in an ugly traffic congestion if you use them.
I would agree with this point, SMTP is not broken, it is merely inappropriate
for use on today's internet.
A proposed successor for internet use, SMTP+SPF supports one of the features
not present in SMTP which is most urgently needed for internet email (sender
authentication), at the cost of breaking backward compatibility (or
alternatively falling back to the SMTP baseline) for some of the less
widely-used features (forwarding, travelling mailman).
I view it as a cost vs. benefit analysis, and SMTP+SPF wins for me - noting
that there are relatively straightforward means to reimplement the
functionality that is incompable with SMTP. Forwarding can be reimplemented
using SRS, and travelling mailmen can use SMTP-AUTH.
- Mr A. Pedant
-------
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?¡