spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Agenda item: SenderID Position Statement

2004-12-05 13:55:44
Greg Connor wrote:

3. SenderID calls for PRA to use v=spf1 which may lead to
   breakage

s/may/DOES/

It's old news now, four of the SPF council members signed it.

The fifth is the new "Executive Director", he go the most
votes, any attempts to force him into something are a waste
of time.

Could most of the objections be solved by not recycling
the v=spf1 records (unless the owner opts in somehow)?

Probably - I still wouldn't like it for technical reasons,
I would advise against an opt-in, but otherwise ignore it.
That's why I proposed an op=pra (opt-in) for some time.

That seemed to be the part that people objected to most
strenuously.

"Opt-out" doesn't fly in old Europe, it's considered as
criminal.  Only spammers and RfC 3865 propagate "opt-out".

they should just install SPF classic and they can still
put the "SenderID" logo on their home page?

Meng's idea backwards, instead of order Coke and get Pepsi,
you now propose to drink Coke in a Pepsi glass.  My pages
are harmless, I won't lie to my visitors.

A dubious idea, you're not allowed to sell a box with an
"intel inside" logo in old Europe, unless it really has an
"intel inside".  Who wants a "Sender ID" logo on his home
page without using PRA ?

4. SenderID is a joint effort/partnership that includes
both PRA and SPF

That's not true.  PRA was never sanctioned by SPF, there's
only an artificial similarity in the underlying syntax.

Minus Meng v=sp1 was never a partnership, this was a weird
idea published in Meng's lyon-senderid-core-00 chapter 3.4
about "backwards compatibility" in October 2004.

Meng has worked hard to make sure that SPF classic is
considered as an equal partner.

Meng does a lot of things, and not all of them make sense
for everybody else, because his POV is that of a "product",
not a mere protocol.  Another council member already left
the gravity of this planet, ground control to major Chuck.

                    Bye, Frank