On Oct 13, 2004, at 7:37 PM, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
1) what exactly is everyone's objection to allowing v=spf1
records to be interpreted in PRA scope?
My objection to allowing v=spf1 records to be interpreted in PRA scope
is that such records weren't published about PRA. If you re-interpret
what people say, and then base reputation systems on such
re-interpretation, you reduce the strength of the original statements:
Some people will rightly claim that their reputation is not deserved,
as it is based on misinterpretation of what they published.
Now I realize that for most sites, if they got a bad reputation due to
interpreting v=spf1 in PRA scope, they'd probably have gotten the same
reputation interpreting v=spf1 in the MAIL FROM scope. But I feel that
making the published statements fuzzier doesn't help us develop a
strong system.
Lastly, simply subsuming v=spf1 records into PRA smacks of shady
dealing: Do you feel that v=spf1 is so good, and so well deployed that
PRA needs to piggy-back on it? Is it that PRA isn't really good enough
to warrant anyone publishing a new record? Or is it that you feel MS's
heavy-weight marketing will cause a new PRA record to immediately
eclipse v=spf1? I don't buy into these arguments.
2) if MS changed the patent license to be compatible with
free software, would those objections go away?
No. My objections to subverting v=spf1 have nothing to do with the
license.
3) would people rather see Microsoft promote an spf2.0/pra
syntax, while the opensource world promotes a v=spf1
syntax?
Yes.
On Oct 13, 2004, at 7:56 PM, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
I would *guess* that Meng and Mark L can figure out some way to do the
equivalent of submitting the whole slew of drafts ...
For the record, I am not involved in the further development of the
Sender ID drafts.