Re: @debian.org email forwarding and SPF
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:35:21PM +0200, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > Correct. But SPF is not intended to stop spam, it is intended to stop
> > > joe-jobbing.
> >
> > Not according to the lead developer of SPF. In an interview with him, at
> > http://www.circleid.com/article/634_0_1_0_C/, SPF is described as an
> > anti-spam scheme at least 4 times (I gave up counting after that).
>
> Ok, now we're into definitions. It does stop some spam, namely joe-jobs.
Rejecting e-mail to unknown usernames stops some spam. I wouldn't call that
an anti-spam scheme.
> That could makes it an anti-spam scheme if you like. It does not, nor have
> I seen it ever claimed, stop all spam.
An "anti-spam scheme" should attempt to stop a certain amount of spam
*because* *it* *is* *spam*. SPF will not stop a single spam as such.
> false sender information. That is completely true. Also note that he
> himself actually never calls SPF an anti-spam scheme. It is the
> *interviewer* who does, repeatedly.
And Meng never once denied it. Considering that a large portion of the
debate over SPF is how shit it is as an anti-spam scheme, and SPF supporters
saying "but it's not an anti-spam scheme", I would expect the creator of SPF
to pull the interviewer up every time he erroneously referred to SPF as an
anti-spam scheme.
The first time the interviewer gave him a question which referred to SPF as
an anti-spam scheme, say something like "First off, I'd like to dispel this
myth that SPF is about stopping spam. It's about stopping forged addressing
of all descriptions, of which spam is the major contributor. [Now onto the
question]".
But nowhere does he do that. He's quite happy to feed the misconception.
The *only* conclusion that can be drawn from that article about whether SPF
is or isn't an anti-spam scheme is that it is.
> Maybe Wong is a bit more optimistic than some of us, but I don't think he
> is actively misrepresenting what SPF is and does.
The article was very informative as to what SPF is. It's intended result
was a little murkier.
- Matt
Reply to: