spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sender ID in the news

2004-10-26 09:03:38
At 04:53 AM 10/26/2004 -0400, Meng Weng Wong 
<mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:

Look at it this way: we now have Microsoft telling people to
publish v=spf1 records.  This is a big win for two reasons:
the people who were previously on the fence will now just do
it, and the people who hadn't heard of all this will now get
some exposure to SPF Classic.

On the technical front, what we really need to do now is
focus on trueing the following assertion:

   If I am running Postfix, Qmail, Exim, or Sendmail, I am
   able to download a package for my OS that has SPF and
   SRS built in and ready to turn on.

Note the SRS requirement.  We really have to crack the
forwarding nut or we're stuck in sight of the finish line.

********************* REPLY SEPARATER **********************
I am one of those observers that seldom participates on this list. Some of
you may recognize me as being anti-XML in SPF and anti-PTR in SPF, which is
about the extent of my participation. It is time for the silent majority to
speak out.

I read every one of Meng's posts, because they are usually concise (he does
not rant and rave like other people on this list), and he shows remarkable
insight and flexability in his political position. Let's face it; any
remaining technical issues with regards to SPF are minor. It's the
political hurdles that have to be overcome.

Just how do we do that? There is little point in developing a system to
read the postal addresses on mail packages if only 10% of the packages have
tags. The system is headed for the scrap heap if that number cannot be
driven to the other end of the spectrum. Microsoft is a slime-bucket
organization. That is a given, as the historical record speaks for itself.
But they are also a very influential market force. If Microsoft can be
utilized to improve the number of published SPF records, why not? Let's get
the published SPF records up where they should be, and let the market
decide which system is used to read them. I could personally care less
which system is used, as long as it achieves the desired result. The
desired result may be open to interpretation, but not the need for greater
publication.

J.A. Coutts


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>