spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Article On Anti-Spam Technologies Mentions SPF

2004-11-16 08:46:37
-----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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>