----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 11:04 AM
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: Is best guess moronic?
"Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote in message
news:437DFB86(_dot_)5B39(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)
Hector Santos wrote:
My objections do not count?
If you have any objections against the Received-SPF header
field I've never seen them.
Because I didn't see a problem, until now.
Or are you just indicating us who you kiss up too?
Please take your pills, those ranting attacks you have are
almost as bad as James' or Derek's. I'm pretty sure that
Bruce or Keith don't have any illusions that I'd support
anything they say.
I resent that. How dare you label me with whoever "Dereks" or "James" are. I
have no CLUE who they are and I don't care.
I don't agree with you and your BLABBING it out, doesn't make it any true,
and since you open the door....
Who the hell are you? What is your INPUT into the technology or
implementation aspects of all this? 99% of your messages are encrypted,
hard to read, and 99% of the time off base or on a off-the-wall tangent!
Geez, obviously, people are nice and don't say anything. Obviously, the
color of your nose is known. I see you as a "wannbe" BRUCE, who for what
its worth, the IETF needs anal-retentive people like the BRUCIES who preside
over IETF ADMINISTRATIVE issues but unfortunately, gets too involved in the
technical issues where he often doesn't belong. I see you as the same.
Keith is a bulk mailer developer and his views are drastically against
anything that rejects mail at the SMTP level. Tony is cool. I have no
issues with him. We disagree on certain views, but he is a solid
professional with deep SMTP development experience.
Now who are you?
Oh, I know you will throw they wrote RFCs! So what!! Anyone can write a RFC.
But look at how FUBAR the x821/x822 specs are and the mess it created!
Those specs were broken the day it was invented and we ALL know it! It was
written in stone, in books, in publications, etc as far back as 1987! But
we wanted to address the ONE or TWO IGNORANT users who spam us stop the
functionality of the system.
Shall I continue?
a USER did think SPF passed a domain, when in fact, it
did not.
Yes, a PASS from unknown strangers is almost useless, some
users don't know this. And a "best guess" PASS for a /24
might be a bit vague. OTOH a best guess 'v=spf1 a mx ?all'
is fine for all practical purposes if you don't do stupid
things with NEUTRAL (like treat it different from NONE).
Frank, thats nice. But who cares what you think? Unless you have some
implementation or service in place with definitive measurements, why should
I trust anything you have to say?
Shall I continue?
SPF is a _dangerous_ tool, the spec. is clear about this,
there's a MUST in the NEUTRAL chapter. But if somebody is
determined to screw up (like say check PRA against v=spf1),
then yes, it's possible to screw up.
There you go into the "TANGENTS" again!
Now if you wish to continue to attack me, I rather not play your game, but
if you must, I will define myself against "blabbers." You try to show a
good game, but it doesn't get by me. Sorry, you opened the door. Its up to
you to close it.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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