-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Meng
Weng
Wong Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:14 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Possible New Mechanism Prefix
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:11:20PM -0400, spf(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com wrote:
|
| The current design says, SPF Pass = permitted sender. That is,
this message
| came from an MTA that I have designated to send e-mail for my
| domain.
|
| If you are saying that SPF is only for people that run their
own MTA, then
| its adoption is going to be very limited.
|
If I were in your shoes I would consider SMIME or PGP signing my
mail.
That transcends the whole worry-space of channel-based
designated sender schemes.
Yes, I can do that, but it does tend to confuse the less technically
oriented people I correspond with.
As I said before, this isn't a SPFv1 thought, its for v2 or whatever
comes next.
I do like SPF, just think it could be a little better.
Scott Kitterman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQNtLi8PZttyL7A1wEQKLOACdGo2Iqzo3KRBwyeqXSwN1vKhT9D0AoPnM
Rurc13b+3cbg8ReW1AV6Ojvu
=aQKb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----