On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 02:39:20PM +0200, K.F.J. Martens wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:15:02PM +0000, Mark wrote:
| > It seems at least the leading folks behind sendmail have grown rather
| > negative about SPF. CLauss' portrayal of SPF, btw, is not really doing SPF
| > justice.
|
It's right and proper for the "establishment" to vigorously defend
themselves from new and unproven ideas. It's our job to move SPF from
"unproven" to, at least, "tested". Along the way, some critics with a
vested interest in, or an emotional attachment to, "the way things have
always been done" may couch their arguments in pessimistic terms ---
they will describe SPF's weaknesses as permanent, pervasive, and
inherent to it.(*5) That is, perhaps, more a reflection of their
personal pessimistic explanatory style than of the problems with SPF.
Things take time. Just because it's not a silver bullet doesn't mean
it's worthless. As Faraday replied, "what is the use of a newborn
baby?"
Sender authentication is a classic Kuhnian paradigm shift.(*1) We're
trying to pull it off using the tricks given by Geoffrey Moore.(*2,*3)
These are exciting times because the summer of 2004 looks like it'll be
the tipping point for SPF.(*4)
Buzzword bibliography:
1 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226458083/
2 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060517123/
3 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0887308244/
4 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316346624/
5 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671019112/