From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751679AbWFLKBK (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:01:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751686AbWFLKBK (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:01:10 -0400 Received: from ns.firmix.at ([62.141.48.66]:17054 "EHLO ns.firmix.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751679AbWFLKBJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:01:09 -0400 Subject: Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter) From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: Alan Cox Cc: Matti Aarnio , jdow , davids@webmaster.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1150106004.22124.155.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <193701c68d16$54cac690$0225a8c0@Wednesday> <1150100286.26402.13.camel@tara.firmix.at> <1150106004.22124.155.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Firmix Software GmbH Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:01:01 +0200 Message-Id: <1150106461.6354.5.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: -2.332 () AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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