Re: A new SMTP "3821" [Re: FTC stuff...........]

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 15:52 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: 
> > "SPF is breaking the mail system for no good reason. Forwarding has
> > worked perfectly well in the past; it is SPF which is changing; it is
> > SPF which is wrong. SPF should not be deployed because there are better
> > ways of achieving the same thing, without the need for such changes."
> 
> I think there was more to it than this:
  <...> 
>  I'd say that "After more than a year of intense technical analysis by 2 
> IETF working groups, in then end, SPF didn't achieve any of the stated
> goals, and made some problems such as 'blowback' much worse."  Perhaps
> this is aptly summarized as "SPF is breaking the mail system for no
> good reason." I guess I'd take that as an executive summary. 

Well yes, but I was trying to follow Chris' lead -- be fair to both
sides, and use neutral language :)

-- 
dwmw2