FWIW I agree with Mark's statements below: Make PRA have its own separate
record published.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Mark
Lentczner
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:51 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Moving Forward ...
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.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
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