nkadel(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net wrote:
> 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.
Alright... since you do not want to read the irc logs I will point you
directly to the result of the IRC discussion.
16:14 <csm-laptop> motion: the council desires to express the SPF
Community position on various issues which have
remained unclarified up to now. The council
requests that MarkK provide a draft of his
proposed position paper(s) by 29 December 2004
16:15 <Julian> 1614u: seconded.
16:15 <csm-laptop> votes?
16:15 <grumpy> 1614u yes
16:15 <MarkK> 1641u: yes
16:15 <Julian> 1614u: abstain
16:15 <csm-laptop> so ordered
So... the council has proposed an official positional draft be created
and it will be reviewed on the 29th.
--
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com, head geek
http://moongroup.com