Re: Unusual spam recently - hummm - postprocess
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
I'm surprised that an allegation that SPF -- highly relevant to SMTP
security -- is "vapourware", not to mention refutations of that
assertion, are off-topic. Nonetheless, I apologise for reacting with
irritation to Michael's claim to that effect: It's just that I expected
better from a Security Team member. Much better.
Well, it is vaporware. Until it's used by a noticable percentage of
hosts, it's irrelevant. I've had spf records on my own domain for some
time, but that doesn't mean I believe that there is enough critical mass
behind the idea to actually make it useful. I'm not yet pushing for spf
records at my day job, for example, because there's not yet a benefit
which would justify the effort on that scale.
Why is it not "vapourware"? Because prepackaged kits exist to trivially add
support to -=all=- of common MTAs: Postfix, Exim, sendmail, qmail,
Courier-MTA, and MS-Exchange Server.
That doesn't matter, unless a large enough fraction of people at both
ends of smtp conversations actually use the stuff. An implementation
that is not deployed is no more useful than a standard which isn't
implemented.
Mike Stone
Reply to: