On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Guy wrote:
Oops, I just saw the reference to SPF in the title, but not in the details.
"SPF Enabled Enterprise Class Anti-Spam Network Appliance"
But I still don't see any reference to Sender ID.
You guys did not get it - the reason they advertised it as "Sender ID"
is because Meng and others are now saying that SPF is part of SID and
that if they support SPF they can also say that they support SID.
And SPF Council after several weeks still has not (re)acted to make the
distinction clear and to let other know that SPF is not part of SID and
that use of SPF v1 records for SID PRA verification is not appropriate.
I'll again remind that we have OpenSPF position on SID that has now been
signed by > 110 people:
http://www.openspf.org/OpenSPF_community_position_v102.html
and for those who did not like it being so technical and so critical of
PRA after considerable discussion on the list, I put a text together
based on previous drafts by Greg Connor:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200412/0474.html
Just now I also put a copy of it into OpenSPF-formatted page for comparison:
http://www.elan.net/~william/emailsecurity/SPF_Community_Position_on_SID.html
Now either one is fine with me but I personally believe that wishes of
those 115 people (and btw you can still sign that pledge if you agree
with the position) should be respected by SPF Council:
http://openspf.org/cgi-bin/openspf_pledge.cgi
So the best they can do for the community is to adapt this now widely
known version and continue on with other more important business such
as publishing SPF1 draft and working with IETF to make it EXPERIMENTAL
RFC and further working on next version of SPF and on UnifiedSPF drafts.
---
William Leibzon, Elan Networks:
mailto: william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
Anti-Spam and Email Security Research Worksite:
http://www.elan.net/~william/emailsecurity/