spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: TENBOX/E as an AUTH type

2007-04-10 02:31:13
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Fundamentally, in an environment where untargeted backscatter is not
What do you mean by "untargetted"?

2.  Reciever doesn't bounce from known forwarders.

I'm not sure what the reciever's incentive is for #2.  Unless forwarders
figure out how to live in a no backscatter world, I think they'll go the way
of finger and gopher.

As the world becomes harsher on backscatter, SRS and traditional
forwarders will die, and TENBOX/E forwarders will be the only ones
available.  To attain full backscatter elimination, TENBOX/E forwarders
will simply refuse to serve clients who will not honor "#2".

I do think there's a good chance that ISPs will implement it if the
forwarders push them.

Basically, by refusing to do SRS, forwarders are pushing a collective
"Don't implement receiverside SPF, otherwise your customers lose their
forwarding." ultimatum on the ISPs, and the ISPs are buckling under it.
Hence the poor deployment of SPF checking.

So, I think it is quite possible that if forwarders push an "Implement
TENBOX/E such that we never see a 5xx, or else your customers lose their
forwarding" ultimatum, the ISPs will also buckle and deploy TENBOX/E.

---- Michael Deutschmann <michael(_at_)talamasca(_dot_)ocis(_dot_)net>

-------
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/?list_id=735