On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:30:10 -0500 John Kelly <jak(_at_)isp2dial(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:13:45 -0500 (EST), "Stuart D. Gathman"
<stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> wrote:
After wading through the hysteria, there are only two problems with
what Microsoft has done wrt sender-ID:
2) their spec (and implementation?) reuses SPF records and pretends they
describe PRA instead of MFROM.
Problem 2 is a *huge* problem.
That is why we filed an appeal. It is cyber-abuse, pure and simple.
Seems like I read it was denied because the RFCs are experimental.
Yes, sender-ID will coexist nicely with the other technologies if they
only address problem 2. The problem is, their mentality can't conceive
of "embrace" without it being followed by "extend" and "extinguish".
If you can you explain why problem 2 is so bad, in language a dummy
can understand, maybe I will see the light.
Ironically your original post to the list complaining Frank's message
failed SID tests based on unintended use of his SPF record for SID is an
excellent example of why it is bad.
Now what about the roughly three quarters of a million domains that had
published SPF records before the SID specs were changed to reuse/abuse SPF
records? They now have to opt out of this new system. How fair is that?
We get a lot of questions on spf-help that are really SID questions.
Personally I don't appreciate ending up being free tech support for someone
else's technology.
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com