On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 07:13:47PM +0100, David wrote:
|
| I also think SES provides better solution to the forwarding problem than
| SRS. It could work alone and, if ses modifiers are published in spf
| records and understood by SPF implementations it will be even better.
| I also have no idea why people are still working on or promoting srs.
The reason I'm promoting SRS, flawed though it is, is
because it's less total work.
Plan A: Senders publish SPF records. Forwarders do SRS.
Plan B: Senders publish SPF records and do SES. Forwarders
do nothing.
While plan B is more elegant, my intuition tells me that the
total work in plan A is less.
Work under A: (Senders*SPF + Forwarders*SRS)
Work under B: (Senders*(SPF+SES) + Forwarders*0)
It is my opinion that A < B. Others may, of course, disagree.
| Well, in fact, srs has sense when forwarders have to forward non
| ses-signed mail comming from a spf protected site, but maybe it will
| be better to just ask spf enabled domains to use ses than ask all
| forwarders to use srs.
I think SES is a great contender in the crypto space, and
seems to offer the benefits of DK but with a BATV technique.
I think that senders will do SPF + Crypto eventually; the
only question is whether that'll be SES or DK or both.
If I get $200,000 in funding, I'll fund SPF+SRS+SES+DK
development for the four major opensource MTAs.