On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Kelson Vibber wrote: > At 10:05 AM 3/10/2004, Mark C. Langston wrote: > >SA rulesets don't break anything. SPF does. > > So false positives from spam filtering don't constitute breakage? >
False positives don't drop mail before "DATA [..] ." is ever sent. False positives don't prohibit several popular methods of using email. False positives don't require major changes to the way servers are configured, and clients are deployed, enterprise-wide. I'm all for a tool that stops joe-jobs, but a poor solution is worse than no solution. When SPF solves the problems it admits it creates without resorting to, "we broke it; you fix it" tactics, I'll supoort it one hundred percent. I'll be its most vocal proponent. As SPF today, the best fix they can come up with is a reimplementation of what amounts to bangpathing. It (SRS) smacks of kludge. -- Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org
