[Asrg] Re: IBM invents return to sender

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Bill Cole wrote:

> The mess that is SPF shows what is needed to describe such
> sets of addresses

It's rather odd why FairUCE considers to _not_ challenge an
SPF PASS from unknown strangers.  It's one of the few cases
where a challenge shouldn't hit innocent bystanders, and a
PASS only means "sender plays by the rules", not "no spam".

> There is a lot of room for arguments in principle that
> traditional forwarding is a flawed model, but those arguments
> lose when it comes down to trying to deploy anything that
> conflicts.

The users of SPF FAIL obviously disagree with this opinion,
they are happy to get rid of "traditional forwarding" when
it also gets rid of numerous bounces / challenges / etc.

For a PR of the SPF Council published yesterday see also:
<http://spf.mehnle.net/Press_Release/2005-03-23>

                       Bye, Frank



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg