spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2004-11-22 11:24:39
-----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 Hannah 
Schroeter
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 11:47 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


Hello!

<snip>

SES *could* be such a solution perhaps, but as the state of
affairs are
now, some domains publish spf with -all, others reject spf fail, and
only a few forwarder sites do SRS. That's a bad order of things.

Can be bad, can also be necessary (see below).


Things should go on a more realistic route: Reality is there *are*
different forwarding setups, by far not all of them run SRS, perhaps
not even anything spf-related at all. If your goal reality is a sender
controlled level of 2821-mail-from authentication w/o false positives,
I'd rather suggest things like solve forwarding first, in
whatever way,
*then* start publishing -all and rejecting spf fail. Not the other way
round, as it seems to be done, unfortunately.

Valid point.

The problem with that logic is, one does not know how to fix forwarding until 
one knows what one is
fixing it for (SPF, PRA, Sender ID, whatever...).  The forwarding solution 
depends on the MTA
authentication scheme used.

Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085




Kind regards,

Hannah.

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily
deactivate your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com


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