On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:40:57 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia
<nkadel(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
<all deleted for brevity sake>
I agree with Nico with regard to SenderID, Mengs attempt to work with
MS and the hijacking of v=SPF1 records.
IMHO, if there is to be a position statement, it should only be with regard to:
1) the relationship (if any) or lack thereof between SPF and SenderID;
2) the use (or abuse) of v=SPF1 records for SenderID checks;
If there are flaws in the PRA check or other portions of SenderID,
that is between the proponents, implementers and users of SenderID. I
don't think the SPF community (through position statements) should be
bashing other attempts to deal with authentication and authorization.
It's just not a very productive use of peoples time.
When MS gave their "ultimatum", it seemed fairly clear to me that they
were looking for support vis a vis SenderID. The statement that was
posted was clearly not supportive and I have to wonder why anyone is
surprised that the link was pulled.
As usual, just my 2 cents.
Mike