From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: SMTP+SPF (was: [9fans] Re: new release?) Message-ID: <20040226104154.GL66917@cassie.foobarbaz.net> References: <5650c97bcaa9d357e77eb3396c1eb368@collyer.net> <3281.199.98.20.107.1077754455.squirrel@wish.cooper.edu> <1077757753.1991.177.camel@rea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1077757753.1991.177.camel@rea> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i From: Christopher Nielsen Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:41:54 -0800 Topicbox-Message-UUID: f8e249c4-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:09:13AM +0000, Dave Lukes wrote: > > FWIW: it's too messy for me to comprehend in a sensible timeframe, spam is hard. let's go shopping. > and no-one I trust has yet said > "it probably works for the following reasons", > therefore, until this changes, as far as I'm concerned, > it Doesn't Work. that said, i agree that spf seems a bit of a hack. but i don't disagree with presotto trying to add support. why? because it provides more options. i know that can be more of a quagmire, but we should provide tools, not dictate policy. policy should be left up to the admin. i am definitely interested to see what geoff has in store; it'd be great to put the work of authentication and verification on the sender. until then, let's provide as many options as folks writing the code are willing to support. -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin