Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter)

[Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@firmix.at>]

On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 10:53 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Llu, 2006-06-12 am 10:18 +0200, ysgrifennodd Bernd Petrovitsch:
> > No. SPF simply defines legitimate outgoing MTAs for a given domain.
> 
> No it does not. If it did it would be almost a usable idea, but it fails
> because the ISP generally controls the definition and the users are more

ACK. The domain owner controls it. So if you are not happy with your
domain owner .....

[...]
> ISPs *love* SPF because they can enforce policies that allow them to
> charge even more to users who want to do anything interesting. The fact
> many of them don't allow users to control their own domain SPF or get a
> fixed SPF pointing at the ISP mailhost only is not entirely that they
> haven't gotten around to fixing it either.
> 
> The people who suffer from SPF are unfortunately the users. The people
> its alleged to stop like it. The people it is alleged to help run
> filters get richer and the users get screwed.
[....]
> SPF *would* be wonderful if the users controlled SPF handling and

Of course it would be much more useful (at least for the more
knowing/interested folks) if the user can specify "legitimate" email
(i.e. for the whole email address, not only th domain part).
This can be done since years with PGP-signatures but almost no one is
really using ist. And this requires understanding of PGP etc. - which is
unfortunately not the case for everyone.
So any simpler (but also reliable enough) scheme needs to be defined.

> someone fixed the forwarding flaws in it, but neither is the case today.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services