On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 13:33 -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
Yup... their misplaced ideology could very well do that exact thing.
Evreytime I hear someone whine, "But that would kill forwarding" in a
mealy mouthed voice I just cringe... it makes me physically ill that
they are willing to continue as they are with a choked, unusable
resource simply because of this unwillingness to change and all the
while the same whiners are bemoaning the fact that there Inbox is full
of unwanted communications from liars, cheats and thieves! Do they
simply not get that the preservation of forwarding is killing the
resource they want to use?
The point, dear moron, is that you don't actually have to break
forwarding to fix the problem. It's not the breaking of forwarding to
which people object. It's the _gratuitous_ breaking of forwarding.
There are better answers. Burying your head in the sand and pretending
that the mailer setups throughout the Internet can be changed in a day
doesn't change the fact that what you're trying to do isn't actually
necessary.
Oh... now there's a good plan... what should we call that project...
certainly not SPF! :-)
SMTP2 ???
No, because it'll still be compatible with SMTP, unlike SPF. I assume
it'll get called something based on the names of the two input
documents, which were 'DomainKeys' and 'Identified Internet Mail'. Or
maybe based on the name 'STRIVERS' of the IETF working group which is
still going, and hasn't been disbanded due to the fundamental brokenness
of the concepts it's discussing.
And while we're at it lets require successful completion of a course in
critical thinking (taught by someone capable of it) prior to graduation
from high school and a basic skills license (like a drivers license)
before you're allowed near a computer or (worse) on the internet! ;-)
Oh yes, at last you've said something which makes sense.
--
dwmw2