Edwin,
EA> As a general practice, let's not get too caught up in naming at the
EA> moment. I'm sure some people will see bias, intended or not, with a
EA> phrase like "SPF-like" or "RMX-based" or "MTAMark-derived." But
EA> hopefully as engineers on this list, we'll be able to look past that for
EA> this interim period. We should probably pick a non-controversial phrase
EA> and forgive people who don't.
In fact, it would probably help quite a lot for us to develop some
generic labels, that distinguish classes of mechanism.
At the moment, I think there are two classes.
One attempts to certify a relationship between an MTA and a message
author.
The other attempts to certify a relationship between an MTA and the
network that that MTA operates in.
I'll refrain from formulating labels, for the moment. Let's see if we
can get some agreement about basic descriptions of the solution classes.
What will probably help the most is having people agree with my
descriptions, offer refinements to them, or offer an alternative
of descriptions.
The only requirement is that none of the proffered text refer to any
existing scheme by name.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>