This is *TRULY* ridiculous.
SPF is dying on it's feet and you guys are wasting time arguing about
the semantics of wording which has limited practical interest, and less
effectiveness than MS's completely broken protocol.
It is a pity we don't have a leader with enough insight and knowledge to
call a halt to this fatuous discussion and clear the way forward.
Daniel Taylor wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
You guys are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin here.
PASS=authorized
ANY machine is susceptible to compromise, there are only degrees
of risk. Relying on a provider that allows cross user forgery is
riskier than running your own well secured BSD server, but that
doesn't mean that running your own BSD server protects you from IP
spoofing &c., your risk is just much lower.
If the risks involved are greater than you wish to authorize, use
NEUTRAL, if they are acceptable use PASS. It is the SENDER POLICY
FRAMEWORK, if your policy doesn't get the desired results from
receivers, tweak it until it does.
We have enough flexibility in this area to allow any reasonable
policy, lets get on with it.
- --
Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtaylor(_at_)vocalabs(_dot_)com http://www.vocalabs.com/
(952)941-6580x203
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCoGBX8/QSptFdBtURAn2iAJwKZVFEC/BIoFjucVxRqDwKw5L+lwCdFQZ0
5nXy0l+FEuscCNZESdIXGtQ=
=S/cT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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