Security threats Toolkit
Story: Experts clash over merits of anti-spam authentication
Mail authentication is wishful thinking because its symptom fighting. So speaking of all the benefits achieved once mail authentication is achieved are simply bogus.
There are existing tools out there that could significantly cut into spam. Without overhauling currently established designs. Without opening up potentially new holes. Without putting additional requirements on currently installed software. So why not use that first before overhauling the lot? Or put in other words. Suppose mail authentication doesn't work out quite as expected. How easy would it be to rip it out again?
Why is it that when something doesn't work out as expected it first gets ignored for years. To then be followed by a cry for updates and upgrades? Why not first see if the objective can be reached with existing means?
Full Talkback thread
Story: Experts clash over merits of anti-spam authentication
-
Hi
I manage the antispam ops at Outblaze, and we'r... Suresh Ramasubramanian -
SPF is designed to stop email forgery. It is... Wayne Schlitt -
SPF was merely intended as an anti-forgery solutio... Neil Murray -
I would be very happy to have viruses stop forging... Anonymous -
Mail authentication is wishful thinking because it... Arthur B.
Back to: Experts clash over merits of anti-spam authentication








