On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 10:41 +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Pete Chown wrote in spf-help:
What should I do now? Is there a way of supporting SPF
without helping to get a patented technology established
on the Internet?
Sure.
MS pretends to control spf2.0/pra to a certain degree, as
defined in draft-lyon-senderid-pra-01
They certainly don't control all of spf2.0, as defined in
draft-lyon-senderid-core-01
They never controlled a single bit of v=spf1 as defined
in draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01
As long as you don't want PRA this doesn't affect you,
v=spf1 is an open standard (wannabe from the IETF's POV,
there's yet no RfC for it).
MS tried to pull the stunt that v=spf1 is by default a
part of PRA. This is a lie, the IESG knows that it's a
lie, so senderid-lyon-core-01 can never pass as an RfC.
Bye, Frank (Cc: mxcomp)
This advice is based upon a false impression that Microsoft waits for an
RFC before producing product. Recall draft-leach-cifs-v1-spec-02.txt?
Consider spf2.0/mfrom and _removing_ v=spf1 as the safe reaction to
Sender-ID.
-Doug