On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, wayne wrote:
For the next SPF council meeting, I request that the SPF communities'
position on SenderID be put on the agenda.
One of my candidate pledges said:
I strongly support the "SPF Community Position on SenderID" as written
on http://www.openspf.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html and
have signed it. Since this document was (obviously) written before
the elections, one of my first tasks would be to bring this to an
official vote.
This pledge has now been signed by over 100 people and more people are
signing it daily. At this time, I intend to vote for adopting this
position as it stands.
I agree. And already larger portion of active members of SPF Community
signed it, so council should just make it official and confirm community
consensus.
I do not think that this "position statement" is perfect, far from it.
It suffers from too many suggestions and not enough editing, a
consequence of being an extreme rush job. It is really too long for a
good position statement, and too short for a whitepaper explaining the
position. It contains one or two items that I'm not certain are
absolutely true (but I also don't know are false).
We don't have a choice any more - many people signed what it was and it
would not be fair to change (except if it has spelling or grammer errors).
---
After council adopts it, this statement should be made available to
interested parties and SPF community members would be encoraged
to let others know if subject comes up on other forums.
And I suggest that SPF Council on behalf of SPF community write a letter
to FTC thanking them for organizing the summit (several pages letter
based on John Glube's original one would be good) and then at the end
mention about SPF Community concerns regarding Microsft PRA algorithm
and for more info refer to the the separate SPF Community position on
SenderID document and attach it with the letter together with list of
signers of course. This should make it clear what we think of SenderID
and provide counter-balance to Microsoft organized corporate interests
letter they received before.
Also another item regarding SenderID is that SPF Community needs
to take clear stand if it wants to have SPF considered "essential part
of SenderID" or if we prefer to have SPF considered separate email
security system that focuses on SMTP Session security (MAIL FROM and
other things from Classic SPF) and then we should make it clear that
in our view SenderID refers only to Microsoft PRA algorithm.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net