IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9

Meng Weng Wong <mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com> Mon, 16 June 2003 20:34 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 QAA01095 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:34:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5GKXr301212 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:33:53 -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 h5GKXrm01209 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:33:53 -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 QAA01068; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:33:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0dc-0006RF-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:31:36 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S0dc-0006RC-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:31:36 -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 h5GGJ1a15696; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:19:01 -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 h5GGIbm15664 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:37 -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 MAA19611 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rweb-0003ik-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:16:21 -0400
Received: from dumbo.pobox.com ([208.210.125.24]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Rwea-0003ih-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:16:20 -0400
Received: by dumbo.pobox.com (Postfix, from userid 505) id CD389DE44; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 12:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Meng Weng Wong <mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com>
To: asrg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20030616161834.GH25291@dumbo.pobox.com>
References: <20030614055858.GB12997@dumbo.pobox.com> <5.2.0.9.2.20030615114312.00ba1d90@std5.imagineis.com> <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030616160157.GC12997@dumbo.pobox.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i
Subject: [Asrg] Re: SPF: Objection 9
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 12:18:34 -0400

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
| 
| ...some objections to SPF have come from people who
| 
| 9) prefer a different approach;
| 

This is a perfectly respectable objection.  In this war on spam we can
use as many weapons as we can get.  We don't have to pick just one
solution; they can work together.  It's time to review the proposals
and unite behind the best ones.  If you evaluate the proposals along
the dimensions of scalability, backward-compatibility, transparency,
level of inconvenience to users, universal applicability,
implementation timeframe, and cost of new code and configuration, SPF
comes out near the head of the pack.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email