I did sign the statement.
I didn't sign it because I 100% agreed with everything it said, but because
I generally agreed with it. Even so, I do NOT think it should be the formal
position of the SPF Council.
Microsoft and Sender-ID are a fact of life that we aren't going to change.
I don't like PRA, I don't like their license, and I really don't like them
reusing v=spf1 records. So what. Those are just facts of life. We need to
move forward.
If the council is going to take positions, they should be in specific about
SPF or a positive assertion of general principle. For example, saying that
Sender_ID is bad because the license is incompatible with the GPL is true,
but problematic. It's better to say that the SPF Council believes that any
solution must be implementable by both commercial and free software.
Focus on making SPF better. Don't waste your time tilting at windmills.
As far as Sender-ID goes, I'd support something along the lines of,
"Sender-ID includes mail from protection derived from SPF. The SPF Council
believes that mail from protection is an essential element of e-mail
authentication. To the extent that Sender-ID mail from protection remains
compatible with the pre-existing SPF usage, the SPF Council supports this."
Everyone who understands whats been going on will be able to read between
the lines. Those who don't get it, aren't going to get it anyway, so you
may as well avoid upsetting people.
Scott K