spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Some thoughts on the XML thread...

2004-01-22 16:59:43
Meng Weng Wong [mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com] wrote:
Now, what is our goal?  If the goal is to stop spam, then we should
allow the expediency factor into our arguments.  The Mystery Stakeholder
controls the desktop and they are so well integrated that they can roll
out their antispam technology across their entire product range,
comprising the MTA, the MUA, the ISP, the webmail portal, etc etc.
Voila.  They could do it, and it would be done, at least as far as
their market is concerned. 

I'm definitely not going to ride the devil AKA Mystery Stakeholder if it means 
employing XML in DNS for no significant benefit.  Personally, I consider 
Mystery Stakeholder evil due to their company politics, but that alone wouldn't 
make me reject an anti-spam technology proposal from them.  It's the pure 
evilness of "XML in DNS" that makes me reject it.

The fact that it's Mystery Stakeholder who proposes this just makes me another 
bit more suspicious, but I still wouldn't buy "XML in DNS" from anyone else as 
well.  It's just stupid.

But what can we really do against the Mystery Stakeholder?  The only
thing that go up against a gorilla is another gorilla.

What does "go up against Mystery Stakeholder" mean?  Have they publicly 
proposed anything sensible that *has to* be gone up against at all?  I think 
SPF in its current form is great for the job it's meant to do.  Is there really 
any serious risk of Mystery Stakeholder pushing a brain-dead standard against 
something as elegant as SPF?

The only risk to SPF adoption currently is that it's not yet finalized, and 
thus most postmasters will hesitate to deploy it.  I think we need to finalize 
SPFv1 ASAP, including solving the forwarding "problem", and then start working 
on SPFv2, possibly including any accreditation/reputation/XML/whatever features 
(i.e. things that are not *essential* for the job SPF has been designed to do).

Having a big, white-hat gorilla on our side would of course a lot.  But I 
seriously doubt that, to achieve that, we should prostitute SPF's elegance and 
fitness for the job.

-------
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