> > I suggest you read my analysis of the barriers to deployment of SPF
> > http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04462.html
>
> please read it very carefully,
I wrote it!
> it talks about sender-id (not spf) and altough this guy says he will not
> implement spf, he does not give any reason for it.
SPF is broken for the same fundamental reasons that Sender-ID is.
> At the end this is only the opinion of a mail admin. Sure there are some
> other people that think so, but this is far away from 'there is a
> consensus the spf is broken'
Unfortunately the lack of consensus is because the majority of anti-spam
activists are unable to think for themselves, and just follow the first
shiny thing that comes along without thought for the breakage it will
cause.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot@???>
http://dotat.at/
BERWICK ON TWEED TO WHITBY: NORTHWEST 5 TO 7. SHOWERS. GOOD. SLIGHT OR
MODERATE BECOMING ROUGH.
