-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Michael
Hammer
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:33 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Article
On Anti-Spam Technologies Mentions SPF
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:42:41 -0500, Scott Kitterman
<spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote:
http://www.eff.org/wp/?f=SpamCollateralDamage.html
Worth reading. Seems reasonably ept from an technical perspective.
Already read it. I guess I'm a little concerned in that they seem to
feel the following:
1) open relays are ok;
2) Consider this little tidbit:
"The activist campaign software then sends the email on her behalf,
putting the letter-writer's email address in the "from" field but
sending it from servers at the activist organization providing the
service. Unfortunately, emails sent in this fashion appear "spoofed"
to email authentication software because the sender's domain is
different from the domain where the email originates."
I'm sorry, it doesn't appear to be spoofed..... it is spoofed. And if
the domain owner publishes a record (of whatever sort) stating which
servers can send mail on their behalf then the activist (or any other)
organization deserves what they get.
Some of what they say is true and some of it is simply nonsense.
Mike
From our perspective you are certainly right. From theirs as a defender of
free and open expression, they are right.
There is a tension between ending forgery and open expression. We want to
end forgery, they want to have no limits on expression. The trick is to
show them that there is a reasonable way to meet both goals. It's just a
matter of how you do it.
They get a wide audience and if we can get them to publish a how to best
practice for 3rd party senders, then we will have made a step forward in
making -all work for more people. This is a good thing.
Scott Kitterman