On Thursday 29 January 2004 2:01 pm, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I very much doubt that the SPF syntax will need a revision so
serious that the version number has to change. But the addition
of new features within the SPF framework is absolutely certain
if it is going to continue.
The idea is to build new systems on top of authentication, not within it.
It sounds like you are proposing that SPF should evolve into a one-stop
monolithic FUSSP. Attempting to do this would doom it to failure.
New features is what we really need to _avoid_.
yahoo is very keen on cryptographic authentication.
I see no problem with a crypto authentication system running as a
parallel/alternative to SPF, in addition RMX, DMP, SMTP-AUTH etc.
You can build your sender reputation system on top of all of these
authentication mechanisms - it need not and should not be inextricably bound
to any of them.
It is not feature creep, the feature set has been discussed
for a very long time.
SPF has always been advertised as a lightweight IP-based sender authentication
framework.
-------
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?¡