-----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
Shewmaker
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 3:15 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] URGENT: Community Position on SenderID
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 04:34, James Couzens wrote:
Everyone,
I don't care if you love me, or hate me, please consider
the following:
http://www.openspf.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html
IF you do NOT agree, PLEASE RAISE what issue
you have with the wording to this list as anyone
participating on this
list in a positive and generally non disruptive fashion is
considered a
member of the SPF community.
I almost, but don't quite agree with the position paper.
Part of my objections are technical, part of them are marketing-type
objections, namely:
<snip>
5. Because I think the PRA algorithm can be improved, I'd change
the beginning of this section to "The current PRA algorithm",
It's also not fair to complain that it drops mail with an
unauthorized Sender:, since that's its *purpose*. It would
be just as wrong to complain that spf drops mail with an
unauthorized MAIL FROM.
NO: SPF does not DROP email, it REJECTS it (big difference, with SPF sender
finds out their email
was not delivered. A sender of a DROPPED email may never find out
automatically the message was not
received)
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085