In <03c201c56dc4$8c3cf570$6c62fea9(_at_)ibmrkydk2ufvdd> "John Glube"
<jbglube(_at_)sympatico(_dot_)ca> writes:
Wayne wrote on June 8:
<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/
|
|I have posted that article to this list before.
|
|I have a lot of respect for Suresh, but on the subject of
|SPF, he has shown a great deal of ignorance about how it
|works. Granted, this was a rant he made after requesting
|to be placed on the T-FWL, so as a email forwarder, he may
|not have been happy about having to change.
Hmm ... an attack on the integrity of an individual held in
high esteem within the anti-abuse community based on ...
speculation.
The speculation?
That the article in issue and the stance taken against SPF
was written in response to a refusal by the operator of
T-FWL to have a specific forwarding service placed on this
service.
Uh, who said *ANYTHING* about Suresh's request being refused? Since
the T-FWL is publicly available, this is something you could have
easily checked before you posted such a claim.
His request just came with a long rant that made several claims about
SPF that were clearly bogus. This isn't speculation.
Rather than speculate as to motives, let's read what the author
wrote as to his motivations:
|Here is my reply to him, which also contains an edited
|version of my thoughts about SPF, that I have, so far,
|posted only on a closed antispam list some months back.
...
In other words, the position taken by the author in the
article was not first written in April, but in fact written
"some months back."
yeah, so?
...
|I manage the antispam operations at Outblaze (we run mail
|for Lycos, mail.com and a bunch of other sites - ~ 40
|million users)
...
Hmm ... somebody who has a fair amount of experience in the
area of dealing with online abuse.
I certainly would agree with that. That doesn't mean that Suresh
knows everything about email. And I will repeat what you quoted me
saying above: I have a lot of respect for Suresh.
...
|Speaking of edge cases, what triggered this removal of our
|SPF records is basically an expression of my strong
|disapproval of a white paper on authentication technologies
|that Meng Wong, the author of the SPF spec, has published.
...
So there is the motivation. It has nothing whatsoever to do
with what is claimed in argument as being the speculated
rationale behind the article:
Right. Suresh made a political decision to remove SPF records.
|Granted, this was a rant he made after requesting to be
|placed on the T-FWL, so as a email forwarder, he may not
|have been happy about having to change.
My response? Don't twist the facts and impugn an
individual's integrity based on speculation.
Again, this is based on what Suresh said to me. For what it is worth,
the request came before April also.
You may strongly disagree with the action:
|Speaking of edge cases, what triggered this removal of our
|SPF records is basically an expression of my strong
|disapproval of a white paper on authentication technologies
|that Meng Wong, the author of the SPF spec, has published.
But, don't attack someone's integrity based on speculation.
Just as importantly I am concerned. Although I appreciate
that everyone is highly motivated and many folks "believe"
in SPF.
I don't have any problems with people who don't "believe" in SPF. It
is not the best solution to stopping email forgery in all cases. I do
have problems with people who "believe" that SPF is something that it
isn't, such as "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", or "SPF will
cure all email problems".
-wayne