-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Res wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Byung-Hee HWANG wrote:
>
>> Yep, i agree with spam reduction. However, i was telling you the method
>> has a risk. You guy need to consider again why the SPF [RFC4408]
>> remained as Experimental RFC instead of Standards Track at IETF.

>
> Yes, we know its experimental at this stage, but the fact it works well
> for 99% of ISP's and companies means it is more than worth the risk.


Okay, you are nice guy for the devotion for SPF!

>>>> Recently i'm going with DKIM [RFC4871] as an alternative technique to
>>>> reduce spam and phishing. DKIM is more reasonable, smooth, exact than
>>>
>>> DKIM is a joke, is it yahoo or gmail or maybe both? use that, and look
>>> at all the spam that comes from them.

>>
>> Well, i believe that over the long term, DKIM is win. It means that
>> peoples adopt reasonable things, at last ;;

>
> How can it win? all it does is confirm the spammer is authorised to spam
> from that domain .. just look at the mess google is responsible for
> but as I said each to our own.


It's not DKIM's fault. Actually the spam case is consideration of Google
itself! And more, Google they are trying. Aside from that, if you want
to talk more about DKIM, join MIPA . There are
so many good developers for email technology. From now on, i'll stop
talk for this thread [Re: SPF record]. Thanks Res for good discussion ;;

byunghee

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkkPipcACgkQsCouaZaxlv4K7gCfRjwr1nZpHG wX5fo5aClhd0Wb
U18AnRVnD1XwgQKuddm2zDyKlD9GdY/+
=IAq2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----