Julian Mehnle writes:
I never demanded that Yahoo should adopt SPF instead of YASAF. It sure is
Yahoo's right to deploy for themselves whatever fits *them* best. What I
don't like is the outlook of 800lb Yahoo trying to impose whatever fits
*them* best onto the world.
Yahoo cannot impose anything. There's absolutely nothing they can do to
force anyone to use any scheme. If they do something stupid, it will be
ignored. Anyone ever heard of the âBonded spammeââ err, âBonder Senderâ
scheme, from the fine folks that call themselves âTrust-Eâ
(http://www.bondedsender.com)? Why haven't you heard of them? They've been
around for a while, and they're not just one, but about a dozen 800lb
gorillas, all rolled into one. Check out theirs sponsor/member list. It
reads like âWho's whoâ of 800lb gorillas.
I read a hillarious message from CNN's postmaster, last year. He was
complaining that their non-confirming mailing list traffic keeps getting
bounced by ISPs due to them being blacklisted in several places. I really
felt sorry for that poor, poor chap. He was such a naive child, a paragon
of innocence; he firmly believed with his heart that because CNN was paying
protection money to TrustE's âBonded Sâerâ program it meant that all
Internet providers worldwide must automatically whitelist CNN's mailing list
traffic. He was utterly shocked when someone else gave him âthe birds and
the beesâ rundown.
I could analyze and contrast the parallels and differences between TrustE's
and Yahoo's approach for quite some time. Suffice to say that when TrustE
banged their drums, announcing this great solutions to the ills of
contemporary E-mail, I smirked, and went back to my business, without any
doubt whatsoever that it'll turn out to be a major fiasco, which it did. For
the same reasons I believe Yahoo's attempt has much better chances. Their
proposal may still fail to get any traction. It's not a sure deal. But,
based on what I've read, I think it's chances are good.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
