Dick St.Peters wrote:
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.
For FAIL policies the work includes "RTFM" - otherwise they
would be in for ugly surprises like "it's legit mail, why did
I get a bounce ?" or the funs of a shared-MSA-PASS.
I'm not uhappy if the "opposition" dictates the speed of SPF
adoption, spoofed domain owners are willing to Read The Fine
Manual within a day. For more than a year spf.pobox.com was
full of false promises, we'll need another year to get the
true message out: SPF is good, it's dangerous, it's no FUSSP.
A "receiver should do work to benefit sender" attitude is
not a good idea when trying to promote something. SPF
requires substantial work by receivers, so its benefits to
receivers should be up front.
Amen. BTW, if somebody (e.g. you) would be willing to update
Meng's old and expired "SRS" draft, I'd be delighted to help
with all formal nits of an Internet draft. Copy of old draft:
http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/draft-mengwong-sender-rewrite-01.txt
Bye, Frank
-------
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