Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]
David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mxcomp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 15:52 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: > > "SPF is breaking the mail system for no good reason. Forwarding has > > worked perfectly well in the past; it is SPF which is changing; it is > > SPF which is wrong. SPF should not be deployed because there are better > > ways of achieving the same thing, without the need for such changes." > > I think there was more to it than this: <...> > I'd say that "After more than a year of intense technical analysis by 2 > IETF working groups, in then end, SPF didn't achieve any of the stated > goals, and made some problems such as 'blowback' much worse." Perhaps > this is aptly summarized as "SPF is breaking the mail system for no > good reason." I guess I'd take that as an executive summary. Well yes, but I was trying to follow Chris' lead -- be fair to both sides, and use neutral language :) -- dwmw2