On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 22:46:28 -0700, rumours say that David MacQuigg <dmq at pobox.com> might have written:
>I'm writing some scripts to check incoming mail against a registry of >reputable senders, using the new authentication methods. Python is >ideal for this because it will give mail-system admins the ability to >experiment with the different methods, and provide some real-world >feedback sorely needed by the advocates of each method. So far, we >have SPF and CSV. See http://purl.net/macquigg/email/python for the >latest project status. I am on the side of advocating SPF records --and I am one of the first four postmasters in my country's TLD that set up SPF records for two of the email domains I'm administrating. SPF is an internet draft now.[1] Your method is/will_not be free (as in beer), as hinted in http://www.ece.arizona.edu/~edatools/home/email/registry/Form-Sender01.htm . *That* is a drawback similar to the licensing of the Microsoft's Sender/Caller-ID scheme. Why not support open, free standards? I have developped scripts of my own to perform various consistency checks (including SPF lookup) and maintain my own black list (I am consulting three RBL's which I have found to be close to my standards, but I want to avoid excessive usage of their bandwidth), and although it takes some time almost every day overseeing things, I would be very timid to support such a free (as in jazz :) scheme. I mean, the "reputation" idea is nice, but paying for this reputation won't help its spreading. Good luck with it as a business, though. [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-newton-maawg-spf-considerations-00.txt -- TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best. "Dear Paul, please stop spamming us." The Corinthians -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list