Re: the SPF effects on mail SENT TO @d.o
Isaac To <kkto@csis.hku.hk> writes:
> 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.
I think there's a fourth one:
d. It's not clear whether SPF will actually help anything, and some
work is required to implement SRS and deal with forwarding back any
bounces, not to mention possibly breaking user assumptions about
envelope senders (for example SRS will turn unresolvable envelope
senders that could be rejected as spam into resolvable envelope
senders unless you take them apart again). So a wait and see
approach may be indicated before actually taking time to do the work.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: