william(at)elan.net wrote:
| 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
Read yesterday's irc logs... it's happening now...
IRC logs don't count as a public policy or position. The dalliance with
SenderID has been a dragging weight on SPF for quite some time, and an endless
source of confusion. Let's be very clear that SenderID is *not* SPF.
If that takes going to Version 3, and perhaps integrating some slight
additional feature sets to justify it, then so be it.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com