Re: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections
Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> Tue, 17 June 2003 04:15 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA15954 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5H4EUQ03053 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:14:30 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (lists.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H4ENm03049 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:14:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA15925; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:14:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S7pE-0002Mu-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:12:04 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S7pD-0002Mr-00; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:12:03 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H0X1a19153; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:33:01 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H0W6m19131 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:32:06 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10138 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:32:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S4M9-0000kp-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:29:49 -0400
Received: from calcite.rhyolite.com ([192.188.61.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S4M7-0000kj-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:29:47 -0400
Received: (from vjs@localhost) by calcite.rhyolite.com (8.12.10.Beta0/8.12.10.Beta0) id h5H0W1YS029474 for asrg@ietf.org env-from <vjs>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:32:01 -0600 (MDT)
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
Message-Id: <200306170032.h5H0W1YS029474@calcite.rhyolite.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections
References: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com>
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:32:01 -0600
> Most objections to SPF have come from people who ... I've seen seemingly endless talk recently about the characteristics of people who don't like SPF and various bits of what I assume are deep philosophies, but nothing about what SPF is. In poking Google, I found http://spf.pobox.com/ From that page, I found this statement on the "executive summary" in http://spf.pobox.com/execsumm.html SPF is not patent-encumbered. As I understand such things, absolutely no one can flatly say that anything is not patent-encumbered. Submarine patents are always a worry even after a professional patent search. That page also says that SPF is less than 2 weeks old. How can anyone claim there are no existing patents on SPF? I thought a patent search required noticable real money and far more time than a week or two. Saying that SPF is unencumbered sounds like an unconditional and unlimited offer of indemnification should a patent surface. Are you sure you want to assume what could be many-multi-million dollar liability? In plowing through the links on http://spf.pobox.com/ I find many statements that seem obviously false to me. For example, the characterization "The Problem With STMP" seemss wrong at least about the nature and history of SMTP. And so on.... I looked at several of the links on http://spf.pobox.com/ without gaining the faintest idea of what SPF is. I found many assurances that SPF will fix spam and that realsoonnow there will be a technical specification, but few technical clues. I did find http://spf.pobox.com/dns.html which seems to involve odd notions of which characters are valid in DNS names and a reasonable notion of names that are not already in use. That page suggests (but does not seem to come out and say) that SPF is a version of what Paul Vixie wrote about years ago about Jim Miller's 1998 idea and what others have written about since but with a few trivial tweaks such as the use of TXT RRs. If that is accurate, then SPF may be based on the false notion that many (or any) major ISPs object or could be forced to object to people sending mail ossensibly from their domain names but via unrelated SMTP clients. I also looked at http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/analysis01.png http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/analysis01.txt http://dumbo.pobox.com/spam-sensor/ and found statistical jargon but little statistical analysis, lots enthusiasm, and no technnical discussion about the nature of SPF. See https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg04508.html for Paul Vixie's old vers version, not because it is wonderful, best, authoritative, final, or even particularly good, but only in the hope of defusing some of the hype. Ob.Philosophy: What is it about spam that brings out the passion to convince and convert? Or maybe it's just that recent arrivals on the DDN Protocol Suite scene are not of the old school that believed the best and only interesting sales presentations involve technical details and running code. Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 8 Jon Kyme
- Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Yakov Shafranovich
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Summary of Objections, erratum Meng Weng Wong
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 5 Meng Weng Wong
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 8 Meng Weng Wong
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 7 Meng Weng Wong
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objections 1 and 2 Meng Weng Wong
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9 Meng Weng Wong
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 6 Meng Weng Wong
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objections 3 and 4 Meng Weng Wong
- [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections Meng Weng Wong
- [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9 Jon Kyme
- Re: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 7 Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 8 Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Scott Nelson
- Re: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections Vernon Schryver
- Re: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections Dave Crocker
- Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Markus Stumpf
- Re: [Asrg] SPF: Summary of Objections Dave Crocker
- Re: [Asrg] Spammer responses to SPF Scott Nelson
- [Asrg] Reverse DNS requirement Steven F Siirila
- [Asrg] Increase in spoofed spam using bogus sender Eric Dean