On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:39:40AM -0400, Michael Hammer wrote:
I guess my main concern would be that Sender ID currently uses the
SPF2 identifier. If SPF Classic uses SPF1 and then a new version and
improved version becomes desirable I see potential problems. Do you
jump to SPF3? Do you share SPF2? Will the proponents of Classic be
willing to see their efforts potentially comingled and co-opted
vis-a-vis Sender ID? The issues that killed MARID were not
technical.... something that all should keep in mind.
Given the way things have progressed (or not) to date I believe that
each of the competing Experimental RFCs should be allowed to proceed
on their own merits without co-mingling. Meng, as the originator of
SPF I think it would be appropriate for you to insist that the SPF
version identifier be reserved for SPF.
Which reminds me, i registered badsenderid.org, with the intent of
writing down why senderid is bad bad bad (eg: stealing the v=spf
'namespace'). Unfortunately, I got tons of work on my shoulders atm, so
I won't be able to get it done anytime soon. If anyone finds a good use
for it, i'll point it at their ip..
(I even used the wrong senderid logo on the page that's up there now :)
koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/