This is a discussion on Re: Why you shouldn't jump on the SPF bandwagon within the alt.comp.mail.qmail forums, part of the Mail Servers and Related category; After consulting : "Criticism of Anti-spam Research" http://spamlinks.net/prevent-research.htm#criticism I sent the following ...
|
|||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|||
|
After consulting :
"Criticism of Anti-spam Research" http://spamlinks.net/prevent-research.htm#criticism I sent the following email : Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:49:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Robert M. Stockmann <stock@stokkie.net> To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> Cc: vjs@rhyolite.com, submit@fussp.org, J.deBoynePollard@tesco.net, info@taugh.com Subject: Re: Why you shouldn't jump on the SPF bandwagon Dear David, SPF certainly sucks [1] when its not implemented properly with a solid SRS implementation as well. Why do the people who promote SPF/SRS implement their reference software _only_ as a Perl add-on package for sendmail? Mr. Wong even wants the SPF discussion to take place on a irc server called irc.perl.org : http://www.openspf.org/Support : "Internet Relay Chat (IRC) If you need real-time help, e.g. for debugging, you can join the #spf IRC channel on irc.perl.org." Why do we need all this perl gear for SPF/SRS when the original MTA's are all written in C? In the mean time I assembled a C source code only implementation for qmail, which i have put online at : "Perl-less Sender Policy Framework SPF on Qmail 1.03" http://crashrecovery.org/SPF/ which seems to work very very well, well for me at least, as my machine is only a dual PIII 500 MHz. Currently i'm working to get a C source code only implementation for SPF/SRS assembled for sendmail, but somehow the promoters of SPF/SRS want me to start eating Perl::Code addons. Somehow it seems impossible, even today, 3 years after the RFC announcement, to get a 100% C code SPF/SRS version of sendmail running.... Why all this Perl crap is forced upon the user/admin of a mailserver i today have a good funded explanation for which i posted here: "The Anti Spam Controversy" http://crashrecovery.org/internet/#spf Bottom line : "jump on the SPF bandwagon?" Sure thing! But only if its done properly. Yours Sincerely, Robert PS. [1] "Why you shouldn't jump on the SPF bandwagon" by David Woodhouse, Thu Jan 13 14:09:11 GMT 2005 http://spfsucks.2truth.com/ -- Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net |