I also agree that something that is completely broken should not be used in place of not having the function.
But I believe that the world in general does not care if something is kind of broken or what is the "right" way of doing things. They care about (1) cost, (2) results and (3) make customers happy. In that order. Doing something "right" is about 235 in the list, right after (234) call mom on her birthday.
Things get implemented because there is a need and the cost is less than ignoring the need.
SPF is a very good solution following those rules. It is cheap, easy to implement, and does about 75% of it's goal. It also tells your customers that you care and are trying to do something about their problem.
It is here to stay until something better can be done that is as easy to implement.
It's not "right". It just is. -Steve Levi Pearson wrote:
Steven Alligood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Before you can convincingly argue against SPF, you need to come up with something that works better and is still as easy to implement.I'm not sure why it's necessary to come up with something better before criticizing what exists. Broken things are broken regardless of whether something better currently exists. There are, in fact, reasonable arguments against using most broken things even when there are no better alternatives. Those arguments won't always win in every situation, but that doesn't make them unworthy of consideration. Finally, ease of implementation is NO EXCUSE for brokenness. If X is broken but easy to implement, and Y is not broken but difficult to implement, then the existence of Y does not preclude arguments against X simply because Y is hard. Sometimes the right solution IS hard. --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
