On Wed, 24 May 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday 24 May 2006 13:43, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
I posted the following summary:
SPF and Sender ID are not the same. They differ in what they validate and
what "layer" of the e-mail system they are concerned with. Sender ID is
not the latest version of SPF -- it is a new and independent experiment.
The "spf2.0" tag name is a historical accident. Neither is better because
they address different problems. There is controversy because Sender ID is
gratuitously incompatible with existing specs. Microsoft is aware of the
problem and representatives of theirs have stated that they have no plans
to fix it. There are practical work-arounds for SPF users.
The remaining text supports the assertions in the summary.
I suggest removing the word gratuitously. That Sender ID is incompatible with
existing standards is a fact noted by the IESG in their note. The degree to
which that incompatibility is gratuitous is a judgment. Getting away from
the facts and into opinion opens the way to argument. Just stick to the
facts. They are good enough to make the case.
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