-----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 Alex
van den
Bogaerdt
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:41 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, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:42:41AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
http://www.eff.org/wp/?f=SpamCollateralDamage.html
Worth reading. Seems reasonably ept from an technical perspective.
The want open relays ?!?!?
Not necessarily. They want 3rd party mailers to work. They can do that by
using a return-path: local to the 3rd party server and a user provided
from:. Their point is political, not technicl.
Remark about (amongst others) SPF:
`` Many have described the email authentication systems as promoting a
policy that says email is "spam unless proven otherwise." ''
That is in fact what Meng is promoting.
They seem to forget many of their problems can be circumvented by:
- using a real, existing sender address
- using a properly configured server, including but not limited to
its DNS records (both forward and reverse) and HELO
- using plain text messages, not html and no web bugs, beacons or
whatever it is called. No exe files and such more
As primarily a political organization, I'm not surprised they don't know
this. We should tell them.
I am not impressed.
I didn't judge them by the same standards as I would a technical
organization.
Alex
Scott Kitterman