----- Original Message -----
From: "Theo Schlossnagle" <jesus(_at_)omniti(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Cc: <jesus(_at_)omniti(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] A couple of thoughts
That's the goal.
I guess another way to phrase it is that SRS is _being_ responsible
while SPF is a good mechanism for enforcing responsibility.
That's fine and dandy, but SPF should not enforce or dictate SRS as the way
to ensure complete operability or compliance or responsible behavior.
Using SPF should in no way imply one must also support SRS.
SPF is a concept to validate the machine, nothing more, nothing less. It
has nothing to do with the user itself.
Other schemes are available for user validation that are completely separate
logics and functionality but together provide the factors to make decision.
In fact, I might want to use a user validation concept in lieu of a machine
validation system only as a user validation also inherently implies machine
validation and compliancy.
Hey, I really don't care if this SRS discussion remains. But it would be
nice to be able to consolidate the discussions into separate folders and
mailing list.
Thanks