RE: URGENT: Community Position on SenderID

On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 15:17 +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:

I just _love_ responding to your messages. :-)

\o/

James Couzens [jcouzens(_at_)6o4(_dot_)ca] wrote:

You've got 20 of the most enjoyable users on earth.  [...]
And they are intelligent too.


I know.  That still doesn't invalidate my point of view.


I didn't mean to infer any lack of validity on your part, so please
forgive me for that.  What originally triggered my first response was
that people are in here who are very impressionable, and when I stated
that I wasn't pointing the finger at you, I really wasn't.  I was more
or less highjacking the discussion to point out my extreme
disappointment at all the people out there publishing -all, and worse,
those out there who are rejecting on it.

-all works great for small networks, those networks who can actually
truthfully state that they "know their email".

No, I'm not.  Very much unlike _you_, _I_ don't consider other people's
points of view invalid just because their circumstances don't apply to me.
There are big ISPs like AOL, and there are small ISPs like me, and they
work under different conditions as you correctly noticed.  But that
doesn't mean that either one of them is wrong when doing things
differently.


Now now, I consider everyone's opinions, but at the end of the day, you
can't treat EVERYONE equally.  Thats why there are popular and unpopular
things.  Your point was not "invalid" in the entire scope of the issue,
however, your point carries little to no weight when it comes time to
discuss "high volume" mail servers.

But think about it.  In my particular case, I represent 30,000
mailboxes.  You represent 20.  Who's opinion as to the value of
publishing '-all' do you think carries more weight?
[...]
Just because you don't like the inferred meaning of my statement,
doesn't mean you have to go and and get all personally offended on this
list.  Remove the emotional reading of my message


If you don't want your messages to undergo "emotional reading", you'd best
not put offending statements like "All the wrong people are giving all the
wrong advice" or "you [...] is like little boy in kiddie's pool [...]" in
them.  I know this is your style, but don't be surprised if people feel
offended by it.


I'm never surprised :-)  And I tip my hat in your general direction for
recognizing this and for responding as articulate as you have.  I
originally did misunderstand where you were coming from, and now you've
been able to clearly and definitively argue your position.

You are confusing things.  First, no one except you in this thread has
been talking about whether publishing "-all" is a good idea.  What people
have been talking about is whether rejecting messages on SPF "fail"
results is practicable.

Second, neither Terry Fielder (to whom you replied) nor Mark Shewmaker (to
whom Terry replied) work for AOL or a similarly big ISP as far as I can
see, and if they and I think that outright rejecting messages on SPF
"fail" results is acceptable for us, who are you to come around and tell
us that what we do is wrong even though it is acceptable for our users?

(I am not going to discuss anything above this line any further.)

And I stick to it: rejecting messages on SPF "fail" results is a feasible
practice _right now_, not depending on ISP size, but mostly depending on
technical implementation and user education (the latter not necessarily
being an issue for big ISPs if done properly).


Well argued, and I quite clearly see your point, and for _right now_
thats great, but I worry about new individuals who join the list and
perhaps misinterpret or misunderstand the implications of doing so.

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