Re: Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity.
2004-01-13 06:08:05
--Chris Drake <christopher(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Mark,
You're only making SPF look more silly with your remarks. "If you own
that sort of business, you should have your own mail server." Great.
So SPF means that you're going to force everyone who runs a business
to own their own domain, their own mail server, their own permanent
internet connection, and their own DNS? Bzzt. real rude.
No, Chris, it is you who are being rude. Did you mean to be?
You have not stated your actual objection, only a wild accusation that SPF
will be implemented by your ISP and will cause "legitimate" email intended
for you to be lost.
Most folks on this list are interested in *constructive* feedback of all
types. That means if you make an effort to articulate clearly, speak
politely, make positive suggestions, and LISTEN in your turn as well, you
will be well-received.
SPF is adopted voluntarily by domain owners who don't want to have their
domain address forged or joe-jobbed, and equally voluntarily by receivers
who wish to screen email by respecting the domain owner's wishes. That
means an ISP publishing SPF information is certifying that certain sending
servers are authorized and others are not. Your point assumes that
"legitimate" email will be sent from other servers, not the ones designated
by the owner of the domain? If the mail is not respecting the published
policy of the domain owner, I don't see how it can be described as
"legitimate".
If you don't see the inherent value of anti-forgery protection, currently
lacking in SMTP, that's fine. You probably don't need to be on the list in
that case. If I am misunderstanding your point (either because I am thick,
or because you haven't stated it clearly), or not addressing it properly,
why not contact me off-list and save the rest of the subscribers the
trouble... I will be happy to read and respond if it will save bandwidth
for others.
thanks
gregc
--
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?¡
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Rik van Riel
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Mark Tranchant
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity.,
Greg Connor <=
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Andy Lester
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard
- Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Tim Gladding
- Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Tim Gladding
- Re[4]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Don Andrews
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Rob Kaper
- Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Phil Howard
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Wechsler
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Dan Boresjo |
Next by Date: |
Re[3]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake |
Previous by Thread: |
Re[2]: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Chris Drake |
Next by Thread: |
Re: Lawsuits, angry business users, and SPF stupidity., Andy Lester |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|