On Thursday 29 January 2004 9:22 am, James Couzens wrote:
As long as spf1 is locked down, and that any future version never breaks
spf1, and spf1 does as advertised, which is prevent forgery, then there
is no need for anyone to fret, regardless if there is an spf2, or if
there is mrs or kds etc... the 1 alone implies future versions, or else
it would just be called spf and there would be no v= at all.
But what does it imply about future versions?
The least threatening philosophy (to potential adopters) for future versions
is fixing flaws in serving the original purpose, but remaining narrowly
tailored to that original purpose.
Since there are (or should not be) any critical flaws in SPF1, a release of
SPF2 should be regarded as a contingency rather than an objective. The 1 does
not imply future versions *will* exist, merely that they *may*.
If however it is the intention to expand the scope of SPF and that adoption of
fixes is contingent on also adopting additional objectives, then we end up
"doing a Microsoft" and forcing unwilling upgrades. I cannot support a
project with that intent.
Much of this comes down to naming. SPF2 (if it is required) should not contain
a reputation system. However a reputation system should be developed to work
in conjuction with SPF1, but it should have it's own name and it's own record
type rather than 'squatting' on a SPF record.
- Dan
-------
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
Wiki:
http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/HomePage
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡