Re: Re: will resistant MTAs be fronted with commercial antispam gateways

Matt Perry <matt(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> [2004-02-10/13:04]:
> Nearly every person that I tell about SPF comes back with the same
> statement: "I don't like SPF because it breaks forwarding." I respond
> that SRS fixes that to which they respond, "where are the SRS
> patches?"
The problem is that while you can implement SPF on your MTA, some form
of return path rewriting (eg. SRS) must be implemented on _all the MTAs
that forward to yours_. Normally, you have no control whatsoever over
those. So before somebody can safely implement SPF, everybody else has
to have SRS implemented already, or bad things will happen...

This is basically the reason why I do return path rewriting and even
publish SPF records for my domains, but do not implement SPF, and
probably will not any time soon.

So in my opinion, it is way too early to try to get people to adopt SPF.
Getting the concept of return path rewriting widely adopted should be
more important. A solid SRS specification, along with mature reference
implementations might help...

Cheers,
Dan


-- 
    Daniel Roethlisberger <daniel(_at_)roe(_dot_)ch>
    OpenPGP key id 0x804A06B1 (1024/4096 DSA/ElGamal)
    144D 6A5E 0C88 E5D7 0775 FCFD 3974 0E98 804A 06B1
!->

-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-20040209.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ëù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com

pgpfyBNG6OjtV.pgp
Description: PGP signature