"Chris Haynes" <chris(_at_)harvington(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> writes:
What do you mean by "supposed"?
"required"?
"alleged"?
"presumed"?
alleged.
Then there is the licensing issue: I don't think any Open Source advocate
would
describe the current Sender-ID as a "sympathetic fusion" of the two approaches
to licencing.
It also does not help that Microsoft have kept delaying telling us
exactly what is covered by their claimed IPR.
Note also Meng's post of
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03093.html
which seems to indicate that Meng believed (on 6 Aug) that there was still a
substantive difference between Sender-ID and his conception of "Unified spf".
I may be wrong about this, but I think that since the original merger
of SPF and Caller-ID to form Sender-ID that (with one notable
exception - the use of XML) Sender-ID has diverged considerably from
SPF (hence the 'supposed' in my original email). In my opinion (which
probably counts for almost nothing) this divergence has not been an
improvement.