----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "IETF MXCOMP (E-mail)" <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Back to Normal] RE: Three major areas of concentration
In fact, it would probably help quite a lot for us to develop some
generic labels, that distinguish classes of mechanism.
Good idea Dave.
At the moment, I take issue with how CID is used for Microsoft's proposal.
I already saw two different acronymns for Microsoft's CallerId Email Policy
proposal. CID, which I think is terrible, since it is a common acroymn used
in many systems (including ours) and I recently read a news rag reference it
(abeit incorrectly) as CSRI, "Coordinated Spam Reduction Initiative." See
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_csri.mspx
Personally, we implemented and labled it as MCEP, "Microsoft's Callerid
Email Policy" because we already use CID as part of our filter language
macro system to reference a RPC client/server session connection or context
id. No need to confuse our customers with such a generic and common
acronymn.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com