On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 04:27:39PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
Look at it this way: we now have Microsoft telling people to
publish v=spf1 records. This is a big win for two reasons:
the people who were previously on the fence will now just do
it, and the people who hadn't heard of all this will now get
some exposure to SPF Classic.
And we also have them telling 'and if there are problems, go to
spf.pobox.com or the spf mailing lists' and there some nice volunteers
are helping out with all sorts of questions about publishing spf
records. If microsoft wants to use spf1 records, they also need to make
a very big donation to the spf community whom they owe a lot for free
tech support and development etc..
I haven't even started about the bad senderid wizard, that's crap and
even though they put a notice on it 'it's beta just to show you how it
will look like' people are actually using that crap.
Have you been talking with microsoft about these concerns?
On the technical front, what we really need to do now is
focus on trueing the following assertion:
If I am running Postfix, Qmail, Exim, or Sendmail, I am
able to download a package for my OS that has SPF and
SRS built in and ready to turn on.
Note the SRS requirement. We really have to crack the
forwarding nut or we're stuck in sight of the finish line.
Right, I'll have a look at my libsrs patch soon, fix up the last
left-over bugs. I promised to look at other mta's in combination with
libsrs2, but so far haven't found the time (need to keep the chimney
smoking, set up my company and all and also try and get that masters
degree in the same time)..
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/