Hi !!
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.
You are right, i desagrre. Having people who do spf do also ses
is easier because they have demostrate by implementing spf that
they are very interested on solving the problem and that they
have the resources to start playing with something that is not
yet a standard. If there is a clear and positive position on the
spf community about ses, success is guaranteed.
Asking forwarders to implement srs is by large more work, mainly
because you need ALL forwarders to do srs for spf to work,
in the other hand you only need all spf publishing domains to do
ses for it to work. Take also in account that many forwarders
have never heard anything about spf or srs. Also forwarders that
do not want to implement spf or srs (sure they will be many)
will not do that just for other's to play with spf. In the other
hand, if you do spf+ses you don't need anyone to do anything
special.
I'm sure that it will be easier to convince anybody doing spf
to do also ses than convincing ALL forwarders to do srs.
I think that senders will do SPF + Crypto eventually; the
only question is whether that'll be SES or DK or both.
the advantage of ses if that you can detect and reject before
data as it protects the mailfrom, DK is good as it protects
the headers and body of the message. I think both are
complementary.
If I get $200,000 in funding, I'll fund SPF+SRS+SES+DK
development for the four major opensource MTAs.
no need to have this money to do that, there are plenty of
developers able to do that work and do it for the community.
What is really need is consensus and a clear position about
the future of spf. SRS was a solution to a problem, not very
good but was the best we had in the past. Now SES solves
better the problem, is more elegant and have extra bennefits,
is not an opinion, is a fact. Then, why we are still speaking
about SRS ?
--
Best regards...
It's a fine line between fishing & standing still
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Saez Padros http://www.ols.es
On-Line Services 2000 S.L. e-mail david(_at_)ols(_dot_)es
Pintor Vayreda 1 telf +34 902 50 29 75
08184 Palau-Solita i Plegamans movil +34 670 35 27 53
----------------------------------------------------------------