On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 12:10:30PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 02:16:07AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On May 15, John Belmonte <john@neggie.net> wrote: > > > > > The debian.org forwarding done by the LDAP distributed email system > > > doesn't seem to implement the sender rewriting scheme > > > (http://spf.pobox.com/srs). > > And let's hope it will continue this way, SPF is a solution looking for > > a problem. > > Please elaborate. I've had this discussion with Marco before, so I'll save you some time and summarise: SPF is not designed to solve the spam problem. It will not solve the spam problem. Some people have been touting SPF as a solution to spam (this *is* an application of the "solution in search of a problem" principle, more or less). Marco is ignoring all other applications of SPF, such as the ones it was designed for, and only paying attention to people proposing it as a solution to spam. I don't know why he persists. [Realistically, SPF is not very interesting unless you're the admin of a medium-to-large corporation or something with a similar structure. In this scenario it cuts down on the bad publicity generated by forged mail that appears to come from you, and the corresponding support costs. In most other scenarios, all it generates is extra work. It is unlikely to pay off, in terms of effort expended vs. effort saved, for small organisations.] -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature