I think you all misunderstand Mengs motives here.
Microsoft could not have cared one way or the other. it was
Meng who convinced them to go this route.
Basically the SPF syntax simply specified the set of IP
addresses of the outgoing mail servers. Once that information
is out there anyone can make use of that information in any
way they please.
The spf=2 faction was a group of IETF blowhards who just
have to feel that they have done something important in
order to save the group from making a really serious error
they would regret - even when their proposal has absolutely
zero impact apart from making a lot of stuff that works
today stop working for no reason at all.
Your biggest problem here is not Microsoft, it is the spammers
and the people they pay to read these lists and stir up
trouble.
Before making kneejerk posts to the list take a few moments
to think about whether someone has been deliberately pushing
your buttons to make an issue out of something unimportant.
You won't see the people responsible on the lists, but I
have seen enough evidence that convinces me that they have
been at work making sure that every disagreement obtains the
widest possible readership.
This is one of the reasons I would never have choosen the IETF
as a venue voluntarily. A consensus process is always vulnerable
to a denial of service attack.
-----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
jpinkerton
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 2:50 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] SenderID and v=spf1 - Please say NO
Meng,
There was an overwhelming oppposition shown on this list to idea
of allowing Microsoft to reuse v=spf1 records for Sender ID
checking.
Because there is a number of events upcoming in which
you're sceduled
to speak regarding SPF and where SenderID would also be mentioned,
I request that you give SPF community your word that you will not
be supporting reusing v=spf1 records for purposes other then what
is specified in the just published draft.
Here here !!
I've been trying to get Meng to state his position for some time now.
If you can not do this and will be speaking in support of reusing
v=spf1 records and in support of Sender ID, please let the
SPF community
know about it so we could decide on possibility of another spokesman
for the community to answer interviews and to provide SPF position
on different events in a way that would better represents consensus
or majority view seen on this list.
Exactly - and we will need to come up with a community policy
and press
release to hit the media with on the day of each meeting.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492
-------
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