mengwong at dumbo
Oct 11, 2003, 11:13 AM
Post #1 of 1
(153 views)
Permalink
|
|
The future of blacklists under SPF
|
|
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 12:56:24PM -0500, wayne wrote:
|
| I guess I don't understand the concern here. SPF doesn't restrict
| anyone from sending email from anyone to anyone. SPF gives domain
| owners the ability to ask that others not use their domain name in
| certain situations. This is a straight forward extension of "my
| server, my rules" to "my domain, my rules". SPF increases freedom of
| speech by giving domain owners a way of speaking. No one is forced to
| listen to the domain owners. If you don't want to listen, just don't
| check the SPF info. No one is forcing domain owners to restrict who
| can use their domain.
|
| I don't see how there can be a "verislime scenario" or a "telephony
| termination economic model". That may be because I'm not 100% certain
| what Paul is referring to.
|
Suppose SPF works and nobody forges mail anymore. Spamers all send mail
using their real domain names. You'll need to subscribe to one or more
blacklists; which ones are you going to choose? And what happens when
the best ones go commercial? To develop a comprehensive reputation
system, you need to somehow snoop on a large portion of the Internet;
under a centralized paradigm, only the largest ISPs or specialized
reporting systems like Vipul's Razor can do this.
One could argue that you're then set up for a natural monopoly, as with
Verisign.
But decentralized paradigms are possible. My argument is that MAPS
proved that the open internet can provide better results than a
commercial service.
It could go either way. I'll find out his concerns at greater depth
later.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname@©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµøˆ¡
|
