Re: "If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <[email protected]>, Mark
<[email protected]> writes

>To sum it up:
>
>1): Spammers causing their registered domains to "pass", only identify and
>set themselves up to be block-listed.

so it would be foolish of them to keep on using their domains

>2): Email sent with reputable domains, used without authorization by
>spammers, 

so they can't borrow domains and send the email from their machines

with you so far :)

>are protected -- hence exempt from erroneously being counted
>towards spam and bad reputation!

Hence, since they still want to spam, they will start sending email with
borrowed domains from borrowed machines...  they are already doing the
latter, they don't do the former because there's currently no need.  SPF
would, if adopted, provide the evolutionary pressure for them to do so.

Of course you may feel that if [email protected] is so dumb as to install
a spam-sending trojan that it serves him right if example.com gets a
really bad reputation. However, if I have a need to swap email with
example.com employees how exactly has SPF improved the situation here ?

Seems to me SPF might have a few advantages relating to back-scatter but
that too much email is being forwarded for that to work out in the near
future. However, promoting it on the basis that spammers will not change
their behaviour doesn't seem to be justified.

Or have I missed something, and if so what ?

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBQpX8MJoAxkTY1oPiEQLfmgCfTGRplsq1GIR6Xc722s6Y2GA89SwAn2tg
8fKa6b9HUVdh0m+vHO3KROXJ
=aCw8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----