[73081] in North American Network Operators' Group
isn't "...isn't perfect, but it's something now"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Crocker)
Thu Aug 12 03:18:38 2004
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:17:47 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Reply-To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408100347400.13677-100000@a.mx.ict1.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Folks,
EBD> ... SPF isn't
EBD> perfect, but it's something now, and IMHO probably better than
This is a very popular view these days.
However there are some fundamental problems with it:
1. It mistakes activity for progress.
2. It ignores opportunity cost, diverting energies to efforts that are
likely to have no effect on spam rather than allocating those resources
to basic improvement in the service.
3. It ignores the difficulties with administration and operation of the
mechanism, as it scales, such as its Procrustean limitation of usage
scenarios that are reasonably supported.
4. It treats a short-term mechanism as if it had long-term benefit; yet
modification of a global infrastructure is always and only subject to
long-term processes.
If SPF is wonderful, it had better satisfy a higher criterion than that
it "isn't perfect, but it's something now".
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
