[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: the SPF effects on mail SENT TO @d.o



Isaac To wrote:
Unluckily, the thread started by John is not a "thread gone mad", or at
least I don't think it is.  The underlying views can be summarized as one of

  a. SPF is a bloodily stupid idea that adds to user inconvenience without
     much gain to the net as whole.  So to prevent SPF from gaining grounds,
     Debian should actively not implement anything to make sure mails from
     SPF enabled sites to actually get delivered.  Then users of SPF will
     one day understand how stupid SPF actually is.

  b. SPF is a good idea, and Debian should support it even when very few
     others are using SPF.  So it really should implement SRS to make sure
     sites with SPF enabled, and users with who filter mails based on SPF
     rules, will be served nicely.  Debian should itself publish SPF records
     as well.

  c. We don't know whether SPF is a good idea, and if enough people do use
     it, we should not bar them from access to the Debian list.  So even if
     Debian might not implement SPF (i.e., not publish a SPF record in the
     Debian DNS server), it should implement at least SRS to make sure other
     users of SPF is served nicely.

The result of the discussion (whether a or b/c) do directly influence the
action to take.

My view is also not covered here. It's that regardless of SPF being a good idea or not, its use is increasing. We know that the number of domains publishing SPF records is growing quickly, and that related filtering tools are landing in our own GNU/Linux distribution, which will soon see very widespread deployment. More important than making a statement against SPF by not forwarding debian.org emails in an SPF-friendly manner, which servers to express the views of only some of our developers, is ensuring that email sent from our users to developers will be reliably delivered. "Our priorities are our users and free software."

-John


--
http:// ift ile.org/



Reply to: