Re: Why you shouldn't jump on the SPF bandwagon
After consulting :
"Criticism of Anti-spam Research"
I sent the following email :
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:49:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Robert M. Stockmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: David Woodhouse <email@example.com>
Cc: [email]firstname.lastname@example.org[/email], [email]email@example.com[/email], [email]J.deBoynePollard@tesco.net[/email],
Subject: Re: Why you shouldn't jump on the SPF bandwagon
SPF certainly sucks  when its not implemented properly with a solid
SRS implementation as well. Why do the people who promote SPF/SRS implement
their reference software _only_ as a Perl add-on package for sendmail?
Mr. Wong even wants the SPF discussion to take place on a irc server
called irc.perl.org :
"Internet Relay Chat (IRC)
If you need real-time help, e.g. for debugging, you can join the #spf
IRC channel on irc.perl.org."
Why do we need all this perl gear for SPF/SRS when the original MTA's
are all written in C? In the mean time I assembled a C source code only
implementation for qmail, which i have put online at :
"Perl-less Sender Policy Framework SPF on Qmail 1.03"
which seems to work very very well, well for me at least, as my machine
is only a dual PIII 500 MHz. Currently i'm working to get a C source
code only implementation for SPF/SRS assembled for sendmail, but
somehow the promoters of SPF/SRS want me to start eating Perl::Code
addons. Somehow it seems impossible, even today, 3 years after the RFC
announcement, to get a 100% C code SPF/SRS version of sendmail
Why all this Perl crap is forced upon the user/admin of a mailserver
i today have a good funded explanation for which i posted here:
"The Anti Spam Controversy"
Bottom line : "jump on the SPF bandwagon?" Sure thing! But only if
its done properly.
 "Why you shouldn't jump on the SPF bandwagon"
by David Woodhouse, Thu Jan 13 14:09:11 GMT 2005
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist