blah blah blah blah thsi has been explained and discussed on teh regular qmail list to death, there is no point in repeating it here.
* Zachary Kotlarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 17:16]: > I hate to contribute to this absurd thread, but I can't stand it. > > First, let's stop with the name calling. Jumping from the mention (with > documentation, I might add) that MS is looking into SPF, to the fact > that you don't like their OS hardly makes your point seem more > credible. It also doesn't help to call SPF "crap" without even a word > of explanation -- if you'd like to convince us you might, I don't know, > offer evidence or citations or anything other than a loaded, > unsupported, single-word opinion. > > Second, MS and AOL are large players in the email world. Maybe you > don't mind not being able to communicate with anyone at Hotmail, MSN, > or AOL, but for most of us, that's not an option. Hence it's probably > not a good idea for us to simply ignore their decision to try SPF. > Whether SPF is a valuable spam-fighting tool or not is irrelevant -- we > may someday need to support SPF in order to play with MS and AOL. > > While the merits of SPF are debatable, I think the idea of an interface > hook for some sort of sender verification (and rejection/marking) is a > good one. It doesn't have to be SPF specific, and in fact I'd suggest > that it's not, as a standardized interface is almost always more > useful. Setting up a SPF/domainkeys/etc. verification tool however, > would be much easier if I could call it with an environmental variable, > rather than hacking it into the delivery chain somewhere. > > Such integration also allows for possible interaction with things like > the tarpit system, or other existing pieces of qmail. Moreover, this > sort of hook could be used to build custom authorization systems, which > might be handy for say, allowing some users to send anywhere, and > others to send only locally. I'm sure there are other examples as well; > my point is that we shouldn't dismiss the idea of an ENV-driven mail > pre-processor somewhere near the SMTP end of the system, as there are > many potential uses, including SPF. > > Zach > > On Jun 21, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Henning Brauer wrote: > > >* Brian Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 16:12]: > >>If [SPF] is complete crap, why are companies like AOL and Microsoft > >>behind it? > > > >yeah right, M$ windoze is the best OS in the world. > > > >do your homework and read the SPF thread on the regular qmail list. > > -- > > As a very witty man once said... > > "There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world. 'T'would be a > pity to damage yours." -- http://2suck.net/hhwl.html - http://www.bsws.de/ Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)
