Seth Goodman writes:
From: Dick St.Peters [mailto:stpeters(_at_)NetHeaven(_dot_)com]
If SPF really takes root, forwarding without sender rewriting will
indeed die.
Only if SRS is universally adopted, a very unlikely outcome, IMHO.
Perhaps not, but SRS does have two big things going for it. First,
the people who implement it are the people who benefit from it.
Second (but perhaps more important), they don't need anyone else to do
anything to get the benefits.
Specifically, SRS benefits forwarders, by helping them forward mail to
and from their users and by eliminating forged bounces. It doesn't
require either receivers or senders to implement anything or change
any procedures. It slips quietly into today's mail, giving those who
implement it an immediate benefit (forged bounce rejection), and it
can co-exist with almost anything else senders and receivers choose to
implement. If they choose SPF, the benefit of SRS increases.
By contrast, as I understand SES, it requires receivers to do work
for senders to gain any benefit, and it requires senders to do work
for receivers to benefit. This is a major hurdle to getting SES
deployed.
SPF has the same problem but to a far lesser degree. The work
required from senders (publishing an SPF record) is very small, so
they aren't being asked to do much for little immediate gain. Even
so, only a small percentage of domains publish SPF records.
(As an aside, I think one of SPF's public relations problems is that
much of its evolution seems guided by people who perceive its benefit
as preventing senders' domains from being forged. A "receiver should
do work to benefit sender" attitude it not a good idea when trying to
promote something. SPF requires substantial work by receivers, so its
benefits to receivers should be up front.)
Mind you, I like the SES concept. I just don't see it overcoming its
deployment hurdle, at least not for a long time. What I want is
reliable trustworthy email, and I don't much care how we get there as
long as we get there sooner rather than later.
Users may not care about the return-path, but mail system operators do.
We are in massive agreement on that.
--
Dick St.Peters, stpeters(_at_)NetHeaven(_dot_)com
-------
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