In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)44(_dot_)0412051036470(_dot_)23330-100000(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
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.
My intent on having the council vote on this is to put this issue to
rest. There were/are, however, several candidates who have express
reservations with this and did not sign it. I cross-posted this
agenda request to spf-discuss as a way of saying "Speak now, or
forever hold your peace."
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)
Indeed, you have suggested that before and as a result, I added it to
the "informal rough draft agenda"[1] for the first council meeting.
Unfortunatly, we didn't make it that far down the list.
I personally think that John's letter[2] is too long (5 pages) and
doesn't really reflect the SPF community on some subjects. For
example, it gives equal time to both SPF and SenderID. It also
promotes the CLEAR proposals, CSV and BATV, instead of SPF/HELO, SES
and SRS. It says that SPF is both expensive and experiemental, while
not mention this about the CLEAR/MASS proposals.
If someone would like to volunteer to try to and take another stab at
what could be an "SPF community response to the FTC summit", I would
greatly appreciate it. I would do try writing one if it wasn't for
the fact that I *really* want to work on the SPF-classic spec right
now.
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.
Good point. I'll request that to be put on the council agenda also.
-wayne
[1] http://moongroup.com/pipermail/spf-council/2004-December/000014.html
[2] See:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200411/0422.html
Note: contrary to what I thought when I wrote that message, John
Glube did *not* send that letter to the FTC.