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

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.

That's not true at all. LMAP has a severe impact on a certain class of spam 
(which for purposes of this debate I will define as unwanted messages). It 
completely prevents return-path forging viruses, and it completely prevents 
bounce messages for messages that a domain did not send.

I can't claim to speak for other people here, but I firmly believe that 
those classes of messages should be called spam for purposes of this group, 
and I firmly believe that LMAP-like methods can prevent such spam.

Philip Miller

> Unless someone has something to propose that does have some relationship
> to spam, I'll shut down this mailing list shortly.
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> http://www.taugh.com