> Of course, nobody would be so dastardly as to organize something like
this,
> but it would be nice if we could make it completely implausible. If it
> takes more than five minutes to explain to a CNN reporter the absurdity of
> blaming SPF, they will ignore the explanation and go with the sensational
> story.
Just to put this in perspective, nothing is really keeping a virus
writer from putting the strings "CNN" or "Mother Teresa" in their virus
or what it does.
If the virus were named "MX-doom" instead of "SPF-doom" it wouldn't have
the same impact on public opinion. Nobody would believe it had anything to
do with MX. SPF has a particular vulnerability here. It may not be
technically correct. It may not be fair. But it is real, and we need to
recognize that it is real. If we cannot make the attack completely
implausible, even to a reporter looking for a story, then we need to at
least be ready with a quick fix, one that is so easy to install that lazy
admins all over the world will do that instead of abandoning SPF.
-- Dave
************************************************************* *
* David MacQuigg, PhD * email: dmquigg-spf(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com *
*
* IC Design Engineer * phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. * Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************* *