From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750875AbWFLIby (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:31:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750932AbWFLIby (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:31:54 -0400 Received: from ns.firmix.at ([62.141.48.66]:8862 "EHLO ns.firmix.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750875AbWFLIbx (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:31:53 -0400 Subject: Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter) From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: marty fouts Cc: David Woodhouse , Matti Aarnio , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <9f7850090606101924r32947e69vb6a34fe905227ff4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060610222734.GZ27502@mea-ext.zmailer.org> <1149980791.18635.197.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <9f7850090606101924r32947e69vb6a34fe905227ff4@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Firmix Software GmbH Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:27:23 +0200 Message-Id: <1150100843.26402.22.camel@tara.firmix.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-4.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.331 () AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:24 -0700, marty fouts wrote: [...] > Further, while there is an RFC for SPF, it is an RFC for an > experimental protocol. In addition to what David points out in his web > site, SPF is controversial, and is in competition with other > approaches. (See RFC 4408.) Not really: http://new.openspf.org/SPF_vs_Sender_ID > It's not widely deployed. However "widely deployed" is defined. It is more widely deployed than any remotely similar proposed mechanism (including and especially SenderId - which addresses actually another problem). > It doesn't work. It works if it is used correctly (as any tool in the world). The "problem" is that postmasters on the Net must do something (namely 1) define if they want to allow others to detect forged emails claimed to come from their domain and 2) - if yes to 1) - to get appropriate SPF records into DNS) and people must either use a "good" mail relay (and not just the one next door) or convince postmasters to change the SPF records. > It'll break standard-abiding email. As you see, standards change. > Do you really want that? Yes. Especially gmail.com should do such a thing - there is such a lot of - presumbly forged - @gmail.com mails in my mailboxes that blacklisting the whole domain causes probably more good than bad (for me, of course). Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services