.
SPF advances - Grin with cat attached
Previous Entry Next Entry
SPF advances Dec. 19th, 2003 11:40 am
SPF tools are now maturing, both on my site and elsewhere.
Please take a look and consider adding records.

http://www.infinitepenguins.net/SPF/
http://spf.pobox.com/

From: reddragdiva
Date: December 19th, 2003 - 03:57 am (Link)
Heh. I see the problem I mentioned to you at the PL has a slightly different answer in the 'Objections Answered':

Q. The Traveling Mailman Problem.
A. (condensed) Well, you're fucked, aren't ya. Hah.

Hmmm.
From: wechsler
Date: December 19th, 2003 - 04:11 am (Link)
He needs to update that - besides SMTP-AUTH, SSH and VPN, you can also solve that trivially using EXISTS macros.
From: reddragdiva
Date: December 19th, 2003 - 04:40 am (Link)
It was more the complete absence of all the stuff you were saying about SPF as just one tool, or a flagging option rather than an impenetrable barrier ... as far as he's concerned, we must do something, this is something so we must do this.
From: valkyriekaren
Date: December 19th, 2003 - 05:51 am (Link)
This is going to be one of those thread where I understand every word, just none of the sentences, isn't it?
I'll stop reading this now, and carry on being clever at other stuff.
From: reddragdiva
Date: December 19th, 2003 - 06:49 am (Link)
What I mean is the unfortunate habit of many people coming up with anti-spam schemes - falling for the following fallacy:

1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. We must do this.

- and then acting like anyone who doesn't fit right in with their wonderful new plan to save the world is mentally defective. Rather than taking a new plan as just one approach, to be used with others in a sensible manner.

In this case, I was talking with wechsler about similar schemes to SPF that had personally caused me great nuisance; he spoke of it as just one thing to be used in measuring the quality of a given message (which is quite sensible). But this other guy seems to be taking the rabid approach from the outset.
From: wechsler
Date: December 19th, 2003 - 07:33 am (Link)
Actually Meng's quite reasonable; I suspect he's just not done himself a favour in that page (which one, precisely?) if it reads that way.
From: reddragdiva
Date: December 19th, 2003 - 07:40 am (Link)
The answer in question was in 'Objections Answered' - a phrasing which itself (perhaps unfortunately) comes across as 'shut up and eat your fucking broccoli.'

Even in the question as he puts it: "The social problem with designated sender is that there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons for mail from a domain to originate someplace other than its home network." Meng then tries to steamroller a social objection with a technical response ... which strikes me as being as likely to be workable as it ever has been, i.e. not at all.