Re: Why you shouldn't jump on the SPF bandwagon

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 ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > Mail Servers and Related > alt.comp.mail.qmail

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-27-2007
Robert M. Stockmann
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Why you shouldn't jump on the SPF bandwagon

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

Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0