-----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 David
Woodhouse
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:34 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Re: RFC 2821 and responsibility for
forwarding
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 12:51 -0500, terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com
wrote:
You keep saying that, but all I have seen you mention have
been refuted.
All solutions can be discarded if you're willing to accept arbitrary
limitations along the lines of "cannot configure MTA" or
"cannot publish
TXT records". In fact, if nobody is allowed to change their
MTA then SPF
can't work _either_, because you need to do something at the receiving
side.
Wrong: Only those experiencing SPAM overload need to change their MTA. If you
don't have a spam
problem, you don't need to change your MTA for SPF to work.
Other solutions (such as DK, IIM, SES) require both ends (MTA and/or MUA) to
change in order to
function. SPF does not: publishing an SPF record is easy (where TXT supported)
and does not
constitute changing the MTA/MUA.
Please do this: Respond with THE ONE alternative solution which you
have evaluated to be THE BEST alternative to SPF.
For me, that's most definitely SES.
My partial implementation of SES is _purely_ in Exim's configuration
language; no actual modification or plugin libraries were required. A
standard Linux installation can do it.
Many domains, like sourceforge.net, stopped accepting faked mail from
dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org 9 months ago. And I stopped receiving bounces
to
mail I didn't send, too.
If you want to impose the arbitrary limitation that it must be
implemented solely in the MUA, then -- bearing in mind that your
objection is about as valid as it would be for me to claim "but you
mustn't require the ability to publish TXT records" -- I'd probably
select DK or IIM instead. As it is, I'm happy enough with SES that I
haven't bothered to implement either of those two yet.
But if you have to implement something _now_ you're going to
have to do
some work anyway. And it's surely better for you to get your hosting
provider to implement SES than to attempt to get the world to
change its
forwarding practice? The former is feasible; the latter is tilting at
windmills.
Your opinion that forwarding cannot change is valid, albeit misguided (just
like those that screamed
foul play when their open relays were blacklisted).
There's no reason why both could not be done. Those that want to alter
forwarding do so. Those
that want to do SES, fine also. Those that do both, even better.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
--
dwmw2
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
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