On 02/22/2006 20:06, John Kelly wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:26:09 -0500, Scott Kitterman
<spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote:
Now people will argue over this. Some see this as legitimate reuse, some
see it as abuse. That's why I said reuse/abuse in my message. To my
point of view, any scheme like this which is opt-out is an abusive
situation.
You call it opt-out like it's some kind of spam scheme. It's only a
burden to mail admins, not their end users. Mail admins need to stop
griping and get with it.
Perhaps I see it differently as a small domain owner. I am both the admin and
the user, so to me that's a distinction without a difference.
To my mind the moral implications of opt-out are the same for SID and spam. I
don't expect everyone else to agree, but that's my view. If I do SPF, I risk
getting my messages rejected because of SID. And the key is that the
"fixing" needs to be done by someone else not me. In this example, it's a
Listbox issue, not mine. Publishing a PRA record wouldn't help me unless I
manually added every non-Sender compliant mailing list I'm on to the record.
SID is an 80% solution in my book and that just isn't good enough. If you
want protection in the message body, have a little patience and join the DKIM
mailing list and help make sure they get that right:
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/index.html
I think that's the approach for the message body that's the most likely to be
effective.
Scott K
-------
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