Re: Problems with SPF, solutions, and a timeline.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 07:31:25PM -0000, John Levine wrote:
> > So any argument against LMAP, that it doesn't prevent spam is
> >*completely* missing the intent of the proposal, which is stated in
> >plain English in the document.
> 
> Great, we agree, LMAP is of no use to deter spam.  Since this is the
> anti-spam research group, rather than some other research group, we've
> also agreed that LMAP is of no further interest here.
> 
> Unless someone has something to propose that does have some relationship
> to spam, I'll shut down this mailing list shortly.


Oh, what a bullshit.

I wonder what your intentions are.

This mailing list is called "smtp-verify", isn't it? That's what we're
gonna do here.

There can be no precise measure excactly focused on spam, since nobody
yet gave a concise technical description of what is spam. So if you 
demand to get a technical method against spam, first give a technical 
statement of what is spam. 

There is consensus, it a lot of people spent a lot of time to find it, 
that SMTP has the big flaw that you can use any sender address, and
that this flaw enables spam and allows spammers to do what they want.

Sender forgery is the property of spam which is by far the best to 
be technically described and battled against. We are limited to
technical measures here. 

As long as nobody else gave a better technical description of spam,
which can be used to design technical counter measures, fighting 
sender forgery is still the best we can do.

Your point of view that this has no relationship to spam and therefore
has to be kept out is counterproductive, because there is no better
way to do it yet. Following you would mean to not fight spam at all.


Regards
Hadmut