In <4191C7BB(_dot_)5040104(_at_)ols(_dot_)es> David <david(_at_)ols(_dot_)es>
writes:
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. [...]
One of the problems with SES is key distribution, and that is an
ongoing cost.
So, if exmaple.com outsources some of its email to
online-billing-outsourcer.com, they have to get a valid an SES key to
them.
Similarly, if exmaple.com allows certain people to work from home,
those people either are forced to go through example.com's MTAs, or
somehow there needs to be a key (and SES software) given to the
employee. With SPF+SRS, they can simply list that home user in their
record.
So, I happen to agree with Meng. I think the total work needed to do
SPF+SRS is less than SPF+SES.
I think both SRS and SES have their places and that they both have
certain problems. But then, if there was an easy and clean solution
to the spam problem, it would have been done many years ago.
-wayne