Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for November

[Tobias Klausmann]

Hi! 

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006, Alin Nastac wrote:

> Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 November 2006 21:01, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> >
> >> So, in other words, spammers aren't abusing anything related to SPF.
> >> They're sending mail using forged return-paths and SPF is highlighting
> >> that.  Which is exactly what SPF is designed to do.
> >>
> > If I were to send my gentoo mail through a mail.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org, with
> > its own SPF record, (I'm not as this is not a "real" domain I have access to,
> > nor a mailserver for what it's worth), with a From: flameeyes@g.o and
> > a Sender: flameeyes@×××××××××××××××××××.org, would it be a PASS or a FAIL in
> > SPF?
> >
> >
> It doesn't matter what From, Sender or whatever else in the message header.
> The part that counts is the Return-Path (the "mail from:" part of the
> SMTP protocol).

Or so it should be. As I've written earlier, some very misguided
people not only judge the Envelope-From (i.e. "MAIL FROM" in
SMTP-Speak, which usually is identical to the header
"Return-Path") against SPF, but also the in-mail header From:. 

Yes, it's downright stupid because it breaks just about nay
mailing software I know. Yes, it's used by at least two larger
providers in Europe. No, tech support there soesn't think it's a
bad idea after I explained it in easy, friendly words.

Idiots. 

Still: there are two things to keep in mind:

1) Do you "just don't care" about the users of those ISPs. 
2) Does Gentoo as a distro want to "advocate" for the usage of
   SPF (ever so slightly) with the knowledge that it breaks
   several things?

Regards,
Tobias

PS: Even without those idiots, SPF breaks pre-delivery forwards.
But also said that already and it was illustrated why that
happens on the "why SPF isn't quite ideal" page someone mentioned
earlier in the thread.

PPS: Windmills, anyone?
-- 
Never touch a burning system.

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list