On Thu, 20 May 2004, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Another thing that seems to escape the average slashdotter (although the
web site seems perfectly clear to me) is that SPF is *just one* of
several easily implemented ways to authenticate the return path (SES being
another), and is *not* an answer to spam (it is an answer to authentication),
and is *not* an answer to authenticating other aspects of an SMTP message.
I confess that I don't read every post to the SPF mailing list, but since
the suggestion was made to eliminate SRS, I have read every post. I also
read the Yahoo! draft of their proposal.
Would someone clue me in to the meaning of SES? (Actually, just telling me
the words that SES stand for would probably suffice. (Google would do the
rest--but a URL somewhere would be even better!)
Thanks again for SPF. This week I changed ?all to -all on my domain's SPF
records, and all seems to be working fine. (Last week I implemented
SPF::Milter ...)
I'm interested in seeing where this SRS thread leads.
--
Weldon Whipple
weldon(_at_)whipple(_dot_)org