On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 07:19:03PM -0600, wayne asserted:
In <20040123005207(_dot_)GD30383(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
The Mystery Stakeholder's name for their answer to SPF is
"Caller-ID for Email".
A few quick comments:
First, this Mystery Stakeholder "Caller-ID for Email" appears to be
totally unrelated to the already announced "Caller-ID for Email" being
pushed by mailshell.com and truste.com. See:
http://www.truste.org/about/about_mailshell.html
Secondly, I'm glad to see such comments from the Mystery Stakeholder,
it helps me understand where they are coming from.
Thirdly, while I think the architect made a good case for XML in
general, I didn't find anything convincing about why XML is a good fit
for a SPF-type system.
Well, Google has announced an interest in extending email. If it is someone
like Google, they have a history of playing nice and sharing their toys. If
are busy building an architecture for their extensions, maybe they want to
hold out till the IPO begins. I could respect that.
--
Bob Greene
Public key available at
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC9C7841C
Or, you can just pull my finger
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡