On Wednesday 24 May 2006 15:37, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Scott Kitterman wrote:
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.
I wanted to convey the fact that the incompatibility is not part of
the (technical) design of Sender ID, and it not needed for proper operation
of Sender ID. In fact, its presence causes problems with the operation
of Sender ID.
I guess I'd stay away from making statements like that on the web site. We
need to convey the difference in a factual, dispassionate way. Let the
reader judge for themselves. In my mind the bottom line is that, if Free
software isn't an issue for a developer, they don't mind disclosing their
business plans to Microsoft (or taking the risk of getting sued), and 80% is
good enough, then Sender ID isn't a bad 822/2822 message body authorization
Personally, none of those are acceptable. Other people will have a different
perspective and that's fine.
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
please go to