Re: CSV (Crocker's draft) good! (evaluation, big suggestion)

[Ooops, my reply to Matthew didn't reach the list because Matthew used Bcc: 
and I at first assumed it was a private message... /gconnor]
--Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> wrote:

> On 5/6/2004 9:31 PM, Greg Connor sent forth electrons to convey:
>
> > --Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps I'm slow, but I look at this thread and I can't tell whether
> > > most
> > > folks like CSV+NBB.  Greg C seems to like it. Compared to SPF, it's
> > > orders of magnitude less effort to adopt.  It doesn't provide
> > > accountability as granular as SPF, which is partly why it is easier to
> > > adopt.
> >
> > What?  No I don't. :)
> "That's an interesting idea.  I like it.  However ..." began your comment
> on CSV+NBB.

Sorry for the conflicting messages there...  I meant to say I like the idea 
(your idea, not Dave's) but I don't care much for the proposal (because it 
involves CSV)

> > I think the point I was trying to make was that SPF does what CSV does
> > and more,
> Aye, it does what CSV does, and more: it requires that some two orders of
> magnitude more systems be touched in order to implement it, as I
> explained in my original post.  Not a good thing.

Right.  SPF requires a lot more work and a lot more forethought.  But, most 
participants on the list have said that they want MAIL FROM and 
From:/Sender: to be protected, which CSV fails to do.
To me, CSV is like dropping your keys in the parking lot, and then going 
back to the lobby to look for them because the light is better there. Sure, 
it may be easier, but it totally misses the point.  I can't in good faith 
count CSV as a real LMAP proposal.

> > without having to create SRV records.
> I advocated CSV switch to use TXT records in my second post to this
> thread! And you didn't say a thing about SRV records in that post!

Actually, I failed to mention it mostly because I agree with you :)  SRV 
records are clumsy and not ideal for what Dave wants to do.

> > > Do we need, e.g. a Wiki table with names in column 1 and contender
> > > acronyms along the top that folks can fill in?
> > >
> > > E.g.
> > > Proposal
> > > Participant  SPF NBB FSV MMark ...
> >
> >
> > Actually I would like to see us chime in on features...
> I tried, and failed here:
> http://asrg.sp.am/wiki?OpinionMatrix so I tried again here:
> http://wiki.fastmail.fm/wiki/index.php/AntiSpamOptionsMatrix
I will check those out.  I think we have a week or more of discussion 
before people will be ready to agree on any features, though.  Sigh :)

--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>