In
<200401231256(_dot_)06986(_dot_)dan(_at_)boresjo(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
Dan Boresjo <dan(_at_)boresjo(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> writes:
This is exactly what I was warning about. The MS's suggestion was only made
in
order to put a spanner in the works. A surprise attack, a spear to the heart.
Never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity.
I *STRONGLY* suspect this is simply a case of someone not
understanding the issues, knowing XML, using XML for other things and
say "we should use XML here also." Moreover, I suspect that work has
already been done on using the MS "caller-id for email" system and
they don't want to just throw that work out. That is one of the
arguments we are using about why the current SPF spec shouldn't be
thrown out.
-wayne
-------
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?¡