Meng Weng Wong wrote:
I emailed LaMont Jones, maintainer of the Debian Postfix package. He
said he'd prefer not to depart from the source distribution.
Debian package maintainers aren't known for being adventurous, or for
that matter particularly responsive.
I emailed Wietse Venema, author of Postfix. He said, basically, that he
didn't like SPF because it breaks forwarding,
SPF does not break forwarding. The outdated and ill-considered mess that
is SMTP forwarding breaks SPF. SRS fixes both.
that "those who attempt to
reinvent SMTP are doomed to do it poorly", and "I am not an SPF
developer and have no plans to become one."
Evidently couldn't think of a real reason then, and doesn't actually
appear to be answering any of the questions or issues that were put to
him. Is postfix not open-source? If so, he doesn't *need* become an SPF
developer. Sounds like pure "not invented here" syndrome to me.
Eric Allman says he finds the SPF syntax "baroque", but admitted he
wasn't too hot on the idea of XML either.
"Nothing's perfect so I'll implement nothing".
So the old guard don't even think there's anything wrong with SMTP ---
spam is just a social problem. So is breaking and entering, but that
doesn't stop people from locking their doors.
I think this clearly shows them to be both reactionary and horribly out
of touch.
How can convince people that SPF is the lesser of two evils?
By concentrating on the people looking for a solution, rather than
people who are emotionally over-invested in "their baby", the SMTP protocol.
If they object to our protocol because it implies flaws in SMTP, I can
only wonder how they'll react to SMTP replacements.
I feel that the EasyImplementation scheme I've documented in the wiki
provides a clear and pain-free path to SPF implementation, we just need
to get people to read it.
Grass-roots advocacy will help. Let's keep spreading the word in
technical forums.
Getting SPF into the source distribution of all four MTAs will help a
huge amount.
It will, but it's not essential; I think we need to continue to promote
on all available fronts.
How about (if you don't want to put it in your sig like me?) sticking an
X-SPF-Protected: True (see http://spf.pobox.com/)
flag in all your outgoing mail? Little things like this (alongside other
routes of course) can have surprisingly large effects. (I suggest we
standardise that header amongst ourselves).
Wechsler
--
This message protected by the SPF protocol - adopt it now!
Details: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/
-------
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?¡