On 21 Jun 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > * Ted Zlatanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-06-21 08:54]: >> On 18 Jun 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> > and I strongly suggest to keep half baked crap liek SPF out of >> > qmail-ldap. >> >> While I won't comment on SPF itself, in general it could be useful to >> provide a mechanism to verify a sender at the SMTP level. > > no, it's complete crap, and should either be ignored or fought. > > the only remotely sane idea about the forgery problem I saw is > domainkeys.
I follow the regular qmail list as well. Note I said I won't comment on SPF. I have no opinion on it, unlike you, and it plays no part in my feature proposal. I've seen the s***storm SPF has generated on the qmail mailing list, and I'm very bored by that discussion. I think you are dismissing the general idea of a hook that passes a username and an IP to a program for external sender verification at the SMTP level. That has nothing to do with SPF, and can be used to do domainkeys or whatever else is appropriate. Let's concentrate on that, OK? Can you explain how my suggestion of a SENDERVERIFY hook is wrong, without mentioning SPF or the qmail mailing list? If you are not against the SENDERVERIFY hook, can you please say so instead of digressing about the evils of SPF and Windows? Thank you Ted
