-----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 John
Glube
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 4:21 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] This is ridiculous.
snip
* Please read the concerns raised by the head of anti-abuse
at Outblaze on Circle ID and the related references.
http://www.circleid.com/article/1039_0_1_0_C/
Finally, ask yourself this question.
The head of anti-abuse at Outblaze, wrote a report for the
OECD setting out "Actions Required by Developing Economies
Against Spam." http://www.circleid.com/article/1095_0_1_0_C/
Now, if SPF is the great white knight, why in his role as
consultant to the OECD did he not recommend that ISPs in
developing countries start implementing SPF?
Because, I would suggest, it is his considered opinion,
based on the problems with all the edge cases, he considers
that SPF/SIDF will do more harm than good for email at
large.
Please note, I don't wish to put words in anyone's mouth. I
suggest you read the referenced material on CircleID.com
and draw your own conclusions.
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
OK. I went and read it. It's not all wrong. It's not all right. I
certainly don't agree with the his view, but that's OK. One thing I don't
understand is this, which seems to be a common criticism of SPF:
"And the implication of publishing SPF records absolutely forces people to
rely only on their email provider's mailserver assuming the restrictive -
all SPF record..."
I've got mechanisms in my SPF record for three different mail service
providers in my SPF record (including one mail server sitting in my office).
How did my publishing SPF force me to do anything?
Do you understand this?
Scott K