-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
AccuSpam wrote:
|>>Does any one have anything substantive to say about SPF vs. SenderKeys?
|>
|>I'm skeptical about the true viability of an MUA based system. Many of
|>the people who admin large email bases, (that I know of) use non-windows
|>based mail clients, often console based like Mutt, or Pine, and many use
|>Mac Mail. Another large group use web based email like Squirrel, or
|>IMP, for their own setups.
|>
|>Are you going to provide the patches for all these different mail
|>clients to use SenderKeys? Or are those of us who use such "low
|>marketshare" clients left out in the cold?
|
|
|
| Thank you! Finally some interesting factual debate.
|
| This is good point.
|
| However, consider that supporting "-all" for SPF (in order to give SPF
similar anti-forgery power)
| for all domains is also going to require upgrades to all MUAs in order
to integrate with many different
| flavors of SMTP authentication at many different servers.
Dude. This statement is completely wrong and I hate to see anyone
betting the farm on a business idea which is factually incorrect on it's
original premise!
Please read the next sentence carefully:
"SPF HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH ANY MUA'S ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME...
IT IS A SERVER SIDE TOOL... PERIOD!"
- --
Chuck Mead <csm(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com>
Instructor II (and resident Postfix bigot), GLS
Disclaimer: "It's Thursday and my name is Locutus of B0rk!"
Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBJnCeZfy0juH51WsRAsQBAKCS2C5bNBmYDa+0kpba3btMm4JMJQCeIU70
Rcspv8iY35v6st/eXrEG7Jg=
=3c59
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----