Re: misconception in SPF

On 12/7/2012 12:31 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> While I agree totally, I understand the OP's point about semi-tech-savvy
> people being more trusting of Twitter mail coming from
> 'bibble.twitter.com' than if it came from 'random.ru'


Strange thread.  Mostly seems to be based on using SPF in ways that it 
is not designed to be used.  It's always problematic to criticize a 
technology for failing to provide services that it is not intended to 
provide.

An essential point, above, is worrying about "semi-tech-savvy people".

First, SPF is not for end-users.  It is for receive-side operators and 
their filtering engines.

Second, embedded technologies, like SPF, cannot be mail fool-proof 
against poor use by operators who misunderstand one or another aspect of 
the technology.  Better software and better documentation are the best 
one can do for them.

This thread seems a bit like worrying about the inability of an 
automobile braking system's failure to prevent the driver from running a 
red light.

Absent a concise and compelling summary statement of the problem at 
issue here, I suggest terminating this fruitless thread.

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net