RE: So here it is one year later...

[<terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 8:48 PM
> To: Gordon Fecyk
> Cc: IETF MXCOMP (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: So here it is one year later...
>
>
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Gordon Fecyk wrote:
>
> >
> > ...since the first rumblings of talking about a working
> group, and there's
> > been no press on MARID since the breakup of said working
> group.  No press
> > from Microsoft, no press from the SPF crowd, no press from anyone.
>
> The working group broke up because of unresolvable technical problems.

Get specific Dean, the unresolvable technical issues was the the PRA is broken, NOT SPF.  So it is SenderID's PRA
component not its SPF component that caused the technical failure.

And the senderid venture was doomed to failure anyway because of the M$ IPR crap.

>
> > And no instructions included on how to compile, install, or
> use what little
> > software is available out there.  Except for the few commercial (and
> > expensive) offerings by GFi.
>
> If you aren't a developer of SPF, probably you shouldn't be using SPF.

Wrong again.  And the proof is that there are many domains that implement SPF, successfully.

>
> > What gives?  Has the whole world lost complete interest in
> stopping spam?  Is
> > spyware really the next big threat to the Internet that the
> US Congress is
> > looking at legislation for it but not bothering with spam anymore?
>
> No, the world has just realized that SPF doesn't work, and won't stop
> spam, nor stop forgery.

SPF never pretended to stop spam.  It does prevent forgery, it does not prevent phishing, but then no technical solution
will ever solve phishing as long as MUA's like Outlook show "pretty names" for everything, suppressing the try
underlying identities of everything from email addresses to attachment types.

> In its present form, SPF does nothing except
> create more opportunities for email abuse, and promotes spam and email
> abuse.  Most people are interested in things that work. Fewer are
> interested in making things worse.

I cannot see how you come to that conclusion, (especially not on your lack of facts you presented).  It does however
well illustrate that there was/is an effort to scuttle SPF.  Mostly by those with alternative products.  Which is
interesting, because if SPF was not a threat to the alternative products, they wouldn't try to scuttle SPF.

Terry Fielder

>
> 		--Dean
>
> --
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000
>
>