<clipped from website>
When an e-mail is received without a trusted SenderKeysTM signature and the
"From:" address is not on the whitelist of the recipient, or optionally only
when "From:" address is blacklisted by recipient, an auto-response e-mail is
sent to the sender which contains an e-mail header that contains the "From:"
address of sender, the url of a SenderKeysTM authority and the private key
assigned to the sender ("From:" address) by that authority. The
auto-response message body should also inform the sender that only if sender
did not send the original e-mail, then the sender should upgrade his MUA
(e-mail program) to support SenderKeysTM in order to stop forgery of his/her
e-mail address. The disposal of the original e-mail is unspecified by
SenderKeysTM. Perhaps some systems may deliver the e-mail and inform the
sender of such in the auto-response, while other verifiers may filter,
quarantine, delay, or block it.
</clipped from website>
So what is proposed here is that all the potential spam is to be
auto-responded and all senders encouraged to join a scheme which they will
have to pay for (presumably?) Well that's going to double my bandwidth
costs caused by spam, and force all my friends and relations to do something
technical with their MTA's SMPT - and pay for doing it!! And including the
private key in the auto-response sounds a bit daft too. And who or what is
"SenderKeysTM authority" controlled by?
Some time ago I tried auto-responding to mail I wasn't sure about and the
consequences on my server were interesting - - -to say the least!! Needless
to say - that experiment only lasted about three days!!!!
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodolfo Sikora" <sikora(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Opening Debate on SPF vs. SenderKeys
Man... this really makes me sad.
I can't believe in anti forgery techs poping out all the time...
The way things are going all I can see is that every one will have
their own "anti-forgery" solution and the mess will continue.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:03:01 +0100, Christian Brunschen
<cb(_at_)df(_dot_)lth(_dot_)se>
wrote:
On 20 Aug 2004, at 14:57, Jason Gurtz wrote:
On 8/20/2004 09:42, AccuSpam wrote:
http://accuspam.com/senderkeys.php
Given that: "The IPR and license of SenderKeysTM will be detailed
later
in a separate document." How do you expect anyone here to take you
seriously at this time?
And not only that. That sentence to me is a direct *disincentive* to
talking with 'AccuSpam(TM)' about anything - because they might just
take some idea(s) mentioned in that discussion and claim them as part
of 'their IP', for which rights and licenses are not yet known. As a
worst-case scenario, they could gather interesting ideas, write them
up, send them off to USPTO and demand that anyone who implements
anything like that pay them a hefty license fee.
// Christian Brunschen
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta
features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta
features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com