Re: misconception in SPF

2012/12/9 Dave Crocker <[email protected]>:

> 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.

When operators believes that SPF and their filtering engines are well
configurated but a forged email pass anyway (by means of this thread),
it finally reaches a "semi-tech-savvy user" who is more trusting of
Twitter mail coming from 'bibble.twitter.com' than if it came from
'random.ru'. None of us are saying that simple users deals with SPF
directly !


> 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.

yes, this is a misunderstanding and I believe this is a good place to
discuss, isn't it?....but I think is a misunderstanding of a huge part
of the operators..excluding you of course !