On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:32:15AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
|
| Trying to get D.J. Bernstein to do it might produce comic results.
| But Russ Nelson has already produced a "net-qmail" distribution of
| qmail with patches, in essence forking qmail. He might be more open
| to SPF.
|
Russ, here's the argument in a nutshell:
DK lets a domain say: "if dk signature present, is legitimate".
Domains also need to say: "if dk signature not present, is forgery".
Otherwise spammers could just continue business as usual and the value
of a DK signature would be diluted by lack of confidence.
DK is strictly an authentication mechanism. SPF is a policy framework.
DK can't make that assertion. SPF can. SPF complements DK.
So let's work together.
In email to me, Mark Delany, the system architect at Yahoo behind DK,
agreed:
| > SPF will do IP based, DK, and accreditation. is that OK with you?
|
| Sure. You can make SPF do anything you want :>
|
| More seriously, yes, it looks like the world will need some sort of
| email policy doc that contains that sorts of things, including the
| possiblity of jurisdictional and reputation tags.
Specifically, if DK ever gets off the ground, I expect to make use of
SPF's built-in extensibility to add a "dk" mechanism that means a domain
always sends with DK signatures. Even if an existing client doesn't
grok "dk" it will accept the message by design.
Russ, if you are agreeable, I would like to discuss putting some form of
SPF support into the next release of net-qmail.
-------
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?¡