-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of
william(at)elan.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:24 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Re: Security Wire Perspectives mentions
SenderID
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Scott Kitterman wrote:
| John Levine, chairman of the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG)
notes that
| "Despite occasional comments to the contrary, no one has actually
| tried out SPF or Sender ID or anything else. And since the e-mail
Strange, why should John want to lie in an interview ? I'll
forward this question to the ASRG mailing list, SPF was used
before the weird "Sender ID" was "invented", we all know this.
It may just be that he was misquoted or quoted out of context. That does
happen now and then.
He may have meant it for SID, since that really has not been tried in any
serious way, but it does look strange that he would say this about SPF.
Here's the URL for the article the quote came from:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3411461
I find it's final sentence a bit odd:
"There are several e-mail authentication schemes available for deployment
tests. Besides Sender ID, which had garnered the most significant big-name
support initially, the MARID working group was considering other options.
The most notable included CSV and Domain Name Accreditation (DNA)."
Since the article was talking about MARID and SPF Classic was never really
considered by MARID, I don't think it would be an overly generous
interpretation of the quote to believe that he was just talking in terms of
Sender ID.
Scott Kitterman