On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 11:45 -0800, Rand Wacker wrote:
Surprised you just didn't go ahead and imply that Yahoo was paying us to
support DK (although I'm sure that Cisco would have deeper pockets in
that regards).
Heh. Hey you get one free one :-)
Its not a popularity contest, these recommendations are specifically
aimed at our customers (both open source and commercial) who want some
guidance on what they should be doing with sender authentication. Based
on where things are today and likely going in the next six months, it
makes much more sense for people to deploy DK than IIM. We've analyzed
both approaches closely, worked directly with both of the teams, and
continue to do so, so this recommendation not based on what popular
opinion is.
Are you sure Rand? Not to fan the smoke here, but I'm most certainly
glad I'm not a "customer" of yours. DK is fundamentally flawed I can't
wait for everyone stupid enough to deploy it succumb to the volley of
abuse that is surely to result from such a massive and intentional
oversight.
I just don't see how it makes sense to deploy DK. Its such a bad idea,
and it speaks volumes to hear people such as your self state that you'd
rather deploy something fundamentally flawed then to explore the other
alternatives out there.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
( ( (
((__)) __\|/__ __|-|__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF
-------
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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part