On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, wayne wrote:
In <1080622785(_dot_)14089(_dot_)44(_dot_)camel(_at_)matt> Boycott Email
Caller ID <comments(_at_)boycott-email-caller-id(_dot_)org> writes:
I've founded a site dedicated to reasons against using Microsoft's
Caller-ID for E-mail.
While there are things I really dislike about MicroSoft's Caller-ID
(several are mentioned on your web page), I think I should point out
that both C-ID and Yahoo's domainkeys try to solve a slightly
different problem than SPF. SPF tries to protect the RFC2821
envelope-from, while C-ID and DK try to protect the RFC2822 From:
header. As such, these are complementary technologies, rather than
competitive.
I note that neither of these technical objectives is the direct aim of
either protocol. Noone sat down and said "We need to protect the 2821
envelope". They sat down and said, "Oh bollocks. That's another 15,000
spams."
This does not affect the technical or political validity of what you say.
S.
So, there may well be people on the SPF list that support both SPF and
C-ID. I don't think that it would be a good use of this mailing list
to have discussions just about the problems with C-ID.
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200403.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
--
Shevek http://www.anarres.org/
I am the Borg. http://www.gothnicity.org/