From: wayne
Sent: July 12, 2004 8:58 PM
To: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: To all SPF-ians: Time for Chocolate
Wayne wrote:
"In this situation, no news is *not* good news.
I am planning on raising the issue on the IETF
list. (Not creating a stink, I hope, just making
sure that people don't forget about it.)"
<snip>
"MicroSoft, like all corporations, is made up of
individuals. In the case of the people from MS
that I have talked to about SPF, I think they
honestly want to just get this working and don't
care about the licensing issues. However, they
do not speak for MS and they have to go through
MS lawyers.
I suspect that, in the case of SPF, the MS delays
in getting this resolved is simply a matter of
too much internal bureaucracy."
<snip>
Hopefully this view is correct.
At the same time, it is good SPF's counsel is
getting involved to thrash through the underlying
"legalities."
Earlier today, MS published two documents:
Sender ID - executive summary.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/0/4/c0412bf5-86f9-42fa-9
f67-59a166c13a77/senderid_exec.pdf
(See points 3, 4 and 5 on page 2. I am not
clear on the perspective behind Point 3.)
- and -
Sender ID - deployment overview
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/e/d/9ed3b337-7a53-4fd8-b
d3e-6c483a2b669a/senderid_deploy.pdf
(See in particular point 3 on pages 2 and 3. Does
this make the existing SPF records problematic?)
People will want to read these documents and
determine whether they properly reflect how the
SPF community understands this project will
evolve.
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC calls for one standard for sender authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004