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: maandag 22 november 2004 18:22
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 Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:47:17PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
OK, you have quite legalistic points. For me, a false positive is
if someone human intends to mail me, from an address he "owns"
(be it on an own domain, be it on a shared domain, but granted to him
by the domain owner), and this mail doesn't reach me for other reasons
than network or computer failure, this is a false rejection.
Clear.
Clear. But 'empty' nonetheless. It is a sort of definition that says, "You
know I am authorized; but I show forth nothing to prove that claim. You
will just have to take my word for it." Hannah's definition of being
'authorized' without proof, though she may very well have a legitimate
claim to the use of the domain name, is, as it stands, indistinguishable
from a spoof. Hence, empty. Like SMTP AUTH without the "AUTH" is just
SMTP. :)
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx