At 01:35 PM 2/27/2004 -0500, you wrote:
From: Casey West <casey(_at_)geeknest(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] SPF Server
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:03:27 -0500
It was Friday, February 27, 2004 when administrator(_at_)yellowhead(_dot_)com
took
the soap box, saying:
: I am comtemplating writing an SPF Server program to offload some of the
: functionality of SPF from the MTA. It would operate very much in the way
: that a Black List server operates. Queries would be in the form:
:
: 4.214.8.207.v2.listbox.com
When this idea was originally discussed at OSCON, in 2003, it was
considered a potential liability risk. As such, everyone agreed that
if folks wanted something like this they'd build it themselves, but
nobody in the room wanted to take responsibility.
I commend you for your interest, and if you aren't worried about
liability (Is it really an issue? Do RBLs get legal threats for
blocks?), go for it. Just wanted to alert you to the last
group-thought I recall on the matter. :-)
Casey West
******************** REPLY SEPARATER *******************
I am not considering offering a public service (which might have legal
liabilities). I was only considering an in-house program to take the load
off the MTA. I know most of you are Linux/Unix oriented, but I am a Windows
developer and this would be a Windows program. I already have an in-house
dynamic Black List server which is doing quite well. However it is designed
for a specific type of environment like ours, and might not function well
in other environments. SPF is more universal, and I envisage that a server
oriented around it would have a more universal appeal. It would be
more-or-less a White List server based on SPF published records.
J.A. Coutts