spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Moving forward

2004-10-01 14:18:07
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:56:38 -0700, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
<amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com> <shedevil(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

If the only people with an ability to submit an SPF-based RFC will not
do so independently of Microsoft, then functionally, yes, Microsoft.


This creates a really silly situation. If this is truly the case then
the Sender-ID draft should have been put forward,  regardless of IPR
claims. (Not a position I would support though).

The purpose of putting forward an SPF1 Experimental version would be
to document and provide a framework for implementers until another
version can be hashed out. You don't have to spend a lot of effort on
it...just enough to provide a clear reference for what has already
been done.

There is clearly momentum in implementation that might be lost if
people thought SPF1 was going to be ditched at an arbitrary point in
time in the near future. You have some large players (AOL) that have
stated they will be using SPF1 checks in conjunction with their white
lists. This means a lot of people are going to publish if for only
that reason. If lots of people publish (SPF1) that creates an
incentive for people to check. A virtuous spiral.

It's not perfect and it's not complete but what it does provide is
sufficient justification for the effort.

As usual, just my 2 cents.

Mike


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