spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Dear Microsoft,

2004-06-06 13:42:30
On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 13:18, wayne wrote:

Again, MS is blameless for not publishing SPFv1 records.  They have
done everything they have committed to as part of the SPF/C-ID merger.
I order to uphold our end of the bargain, we all need to add XML
support to our SPF implementations, and start using the "caller-iD"
algorithm for obtaining the "responsible domain" from the headers.

This is the second time you raise the term blame.  I'm not blaming MS
for anything.  The e-mail was intended to evoke a response and a
discussion about this very topic.  They SHOULD be publishing SPF1
records.  It wouldn't confuse a damn soul, and it would bolster
confidence that they really are serious about stopping forgery, and
given that we are in "talks" I hardly think any bad press would come of
it.

"Microsoft publishes SPF1 records as a sign of confidence in its efforts
to work with the Open Source community..."

Cheers,

James

-- 
James Couzens,
Programmer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBD3BF855

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>