In <4019371B(_dot_)8070207(_at_)phase(_dot_)org> Wechsler
<wechsler(_at_)phase(_dot_)org> writes:
I think Meng has seen and read most of these other proposed
standards.
He may well have, but not everyone has had that chance, and knowledge
locked away in Meng's head does not allow the rest of us to discuss
things any more clearly.
Yeah, I agree. This is one of the problems with these behind-the-scenes
standard development processes. Many eyes make shallow bugs.
MS Caller-ID addresses a slightly different issue than SPF and is in
some ways compatible. MS could rip out a few parts of Caller-ID (the
XML in DNS stuff) and use SPF instead. It would then be an ok (but
not great) spec for verifying email headers. [...]
CID appears to me to throw away far too much of SPF's power to be
really worthwhile. But that may just be a personal opinion.
My understanding is that CID has a lot of stuff to validate headers.
It has a very simplistic authorization model, but that part of the
spec could easily be replaced with checking the output of SPF.
-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
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?¡