On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 14:05 +0000, Mark wrote:
SRS is not designed for this purpose and has a lot of
brain damage that is best avoided.
Not to start a whole new round of SRS vs. SES, but SRS is ideally suited
for the job.
SRS has not existed that long. The spec originally began to solidify
around February, but I know what you are saying, when you have worked
with SRS it does feel like an eternity... ;-)
SRS is based on the 'what-goes-around-comes-around' principle; or, rather,
'what does not go around should not come around'. I have been using SRS
for a good year now, and primarily for the purpose of detecting fake
DSNs.
I'm pretty much in line with Tony's thinking that there is a lot of
brain damage associated with it, particularly having to step back into
the email stone age as regards the involved re-writing process.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
( ( (
((__)) __\|/__ __|-|__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF
-------
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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part