spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sender-ID in Gmail advertising

2004-12-24 13:47:12

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Chuck Mead wrote:

nkadel(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net wrote:

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.

I fully agree with above
 
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

I've seen Mark's draft here before and I have problems with that he does 
not want to address specific issues and wants to create general set of 
guidelines for implementors. Now this is all good and needed so I don't 
want to say that Mark should not work on all that but I do not believe 
that these guidelines can replace the "position" on given issue like
that of relationship between SPF and SID. 

I'll note that also that another council member (Wayne) long ago created
the base for position statement that you now see at openspf.org and that
statement had been signed by almost 120 people includig 4 from the council.
Now it may not be "perfect" (and neither would the new statement be) but 
it sure is easier to have to work on serious of new statements.

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

I only see two votes above - Julian abstained (btw I think its the first
time it happened that council cound not reach decision with all who voted
being in favor), Meng was not present and Chuck did not vote being a 
chair. So I'm not certain it can really be considered a work task 
approved by the council with only two votes in favor.

So... the council has proposed an official positional draft be created 
and it will be reviewed on the 29th.

I believe it is appropriate for the statement to be reviewed by SPF-discuss
and council should then make decision to support or modify or reject based 
on views presented. This is what would make a difference having this as as 
statement from SPF Council or being general one coming from SPF Community.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net