I have enough problems explaining to users why they are unable to receive mail
from others whose
mail servers are open, trojaned, wormed, or otherwise blacklisted for actual
abuse.
Adding even more non-deterministic approach makes my reality more miserable.
No thanks.
Perhaps, if SPF1 does not resolve enough, and/or spammers adapt in ways we do
not predict, then we
may enhance to a version 2 that uses a probabilistic approach. But lets learn
to walk before we try
to run.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----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 David
Brodbeck
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:37 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Some thoughts about spam and SPF
Matthew(_dot_)van(_dot_)Eerde(_at_)hbinc(_dot_)com wrote:
Everyone will make their own choices, and we no
longer really have a standardized, predictable response. The whole
thing becomes much more non-deterministic. Different sites will be
treating the same SPF record completely differently.
This is a good thing. Different people have differing levels of
paranoia.
I don't see it as a good thing. It would mean that when you
published
an SPF record, you would have to guess at how people were going to
interpret it. It makes it a lot riskier.
-------
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