Re: the SPF effects on mail SENT TO @d.o
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:39:19AM -0400, John Belmonte wrote:
> 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
[...]
> > 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."
I fail to see how your argument differs from c, except for throwing in
quote from the SC that can be taken to support any of the
alternatives. (»SPF is ultimately broken and because "Our priorities
are our users and free software." we may not support and adveritse SPF
by impementing its broken schemes..« - you get the drift.)
cu andreas
Reply to: