-----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
Hallam-Baker,
Phillip
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:55 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Re: When did we lose control?
From Lou Katz
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:13:08PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:50:47AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
|
| So Meng? What would it take to convince you to dump Microsoft's
| involvement and negotiations in this effort and tell
them they can
| ride in back along but they have to stop kicking the back of the
| driver's seat?
The folks who asked me, back in January, to work with
Microsoft to produce a single standard, would have to ask me
to stop.
PLEASE NAME THESE 'FOLKS'
In the real world a lot of decisions take place in what are now
fortunately smoke free rooms but the principle is the same.
In December last year there was a meeting at the Aspen institute
where a number of Industry leaders and academics came together
to work on the spam and net crime problems. Neither Meng nor
Microsoft were present.
So there is another entity out there working on a third solution, or are you
saying that the meeting
accomplished .... nothing.
Out of that meeting came an invitation only meeting at Harvard
attended by all the major ISPs, the major email senders, the
vendors, the proposers of the email authentication schemes.
Each person present had been choosen specifically because they
could help get something deployed.
Ah-ha. So the meeting accomplished the scheduling of another closed door
meeting. And from that
meeting they accomplished .... ?
The overwhelming consensus in that room was that it would be
better if there was one solution rather than SPF and SenderID
Ah-ha. So the meeting accomplished the stating of an opinion. Excellent
progress. Clearly we need
some more opinions.
And even if the opinion had bearing on the work for SPF, "Better" does not
imply "only way". And 2
implemented solutions is better then NONE. And until SenderID actually turns
into an implemented
solution, SPF would seem to be "the one" implemented solution.
The same sort of consensus has been present at every single
email/spam conference Meng and I have attended over the past
year - of which there have been many.
Phill
So what?
Who said that SPF has to be changed to SenderID???
Why can't Microsoft adopt SPF, you know, v1 (the one that's tested, deployed
and works)???
And don't forget the SenderID, in it latest rendition, is not actually "a
solution", it is a
composition of multiple solutions (even though it tries to ditch classic SPF
2821 checks).
PHB's points are well thought out, pro big business, but misguided. There is
no "one" solution that
will solve a problem from everyone's disparate needs/wants/implementations.
Dreaming for one would
be, well, a dream.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-------
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