wayne wrote:
John Levine wrote an article on his blog and it was also picked up as
a story on CircleID:
In it, John I guess says that the MAAWG and Earthlink don't much like
SPF. Actually, this is reading between the lines of John's reading
between the lines.
See:
http://www.circleid.com/article/1157_0_1_0_C/
The meat of the story is:
Earlier in July their technical committee quietly released an
evaluation of SPF and Sender-ID[1]. Although it is worded very
tactfully, the message is clear from phrases like;
While MAAWG neither endorses nor discourages the use of SPF or
Sender ID, the technical committee's findings highlight
real-world risks to the delivery of legitimate e-mail when the
specifications are implemented.
At about the same time, Earthlink equally quietly removed the SPF
records they'd been publishing for at least a year. That was
particularly surprising because SPF originator Meng Wong had been
working with Earthlink to get their SPF set up. If Meng can't make
SPF work, who can?
If *only* that were true. Unfortunately Meng does *not* push SPF, but
pushes SenderID (or has this changed very recently?). And the fact that
PRA is broken beyond repair, coupled with the misguided opinion that SPF
records will inevitably be used for PRA type evaluations could cause
panickers to remove their SPF records.
Anyway, Earthlink has proved time and again they are not the sharpest
tool in the shed (I have users who used to be customers).
Terry
-wayne
[1] http://www.maawg.org/news/maawg050711
http://www.maawg.org/about/whitepapers/spf_sendID
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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
--
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085