spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [SPF v1 Draft] Last chance before I submit...

2004-10-19 17:32:52
Koen Martens wrote:

We already knew that microsoft's involvement is scaring away
implementors and developers. No need to restate that I think.

M$ is irrelevant here, Meng is relevant.  Some weeks ago when
somebody had a problem with a flood of bounces and other crap
caused by forged addresses I simply recommended to publish a
sender policy.  A complete explanation with examples and the
essential idea needed only a few lines of text.

Today I cannot do this anymore, unless I add a lot of caveats
about potential abuses of SPF policies by Sender-ID, and some
of the side-effects.

Threatening to pull back your spf records if microsoft is
going to do PRA against them is pointless.

It's not about the "inventors" of RfC 822 cum RMX as listed
in patent claim <http://tinyurl.com/6lczr>, they lost their
honour.  It's about the desaster if Meng would recommend to
rape v=spf1 policies.  Meng hasn't answered the REQUEST in
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss/10860>

William's REQUEST was supported by Wayne, James, and JohnP.

If Meng answers it today it might be already too late for
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss/11008>

                         Bye, Frank



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>