spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Testing SPF/SRS

2005-02-21 13:50:51
At 10:28 AM 2/21/2005 -0500, Stuart Gathman wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, David MacQuigg wrote:
[snip]
> Can anyone suggest a better way to do this demo?

[snip]
This is something the detractors of SRS have predicted would happen.  But
it is not really the fault of SRS, but of a halfway implementation.

It is the fault of SRS to the extent that this method is overly complex, and poorly defined. This is leading to lots of confusion on how to implement it.

Apparently, people are afraid to reject SPF FAIL because the sender
might have screwed up their SPF record.  Well, duh, the best way to
find out about your mistake is to get nice clean 550 rejections as early
as possible.

Agree completely. There is no excuse for pobox.com accepting a forged 'amazon.com' when Amazon has said clearly "Do not accept anything but these specific servers."

Ironic, considering that employees of pobox.com were instrumental in
creating SRS.

I think the ball has been dropped. SPF was brilliantly conceived and promoted. SRS was an afterthought, and is not being properly supported.

-- Dave


*************************************************************     *
* David MacQuigg, PhD              * email:  dmq at gain.com      *  *
* IC Design Engineer               * phone:  USA 520-721-4583  *  *  *
* Analog Design Methodologies                                  *  *  *
*                                  * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane     * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C.             * Tucson, Arizona 85710        *
*************************************************************     *

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