Meng Weng Wong [mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 09:25:11PM -0500, Marc Alaia wrote:
I think that an unreasonably-high priority is being put on
terminating the message before full receipt. The cost-factor may be
high now, but once SPF is more prevalent spammers will not send
non-SPF-compliant emails knowing that they will be simply deleted by
the receiving system and therefore doing it this way will eventually
be worthless. I'd rather we do it right in the beginning than having
less perfect system because one group of users sees it more
economically right now....
This could be true. What do people think will happen? Any spammers on
the list please speak up, your input is important. :)
But processing headers is costly. And I don't know if worms and
viruses will care.
"Once SPF is more prevalent", who will write virm that forge the sender
address, knowing that the messages will be rejected/deleted automatically(!)
anyway?
I don't quite understand the "processing headers is costly" argument, though.
Why would SPF need to look at the headers in the first place? If I understand
John Warren's proposal correctly, it essentially just says that
forwarding/bounce information should be put into the "Sender:" header field
instead of using a complicated rewriting scheme for the envelope sender. The
core functionality of SPF, i.e. determining if the envelope sender domain is
"valid", isn't touched by that change, is it?
-------
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_)���v¼����ߴ� �1I�-�Fqx(_dot_)com