Kelson Vibber wrote:
>At 10:05 PM 3/8/2004, Jeff Makey wrote:
>>Perhaps my biggest objection to SPF is the dishonest way it is marketed as
>>an anti-spam tool
>
>Marketed by whom? http://spf.pobox.com focuses heavily on the anti-forgery
>aspects.
Nearly everyone who discusses SPF in a positive manner describes it as
helping to fight spam because that is much sexier marketing than the
more accurate anti-joe-job description. The fact that the next version
of SpamAssassin will include SPF means that this is a lost cause
("SPF *must* be an anti-spam tool if they included it in SA!"),
so I'll stop whining about it now.
>>it is nothing more than a weak anti-joe-job tool.
>
>Well, whether it's weak or not is debatable
A strong and truly effective anti-joe-job system would use appropriate
cryptographic authentication techniques. Compared to that, SPF is
embarrassingly weak.
:: Jeff Makey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
