-----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 David
MacQuigg
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:59 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] [FPS] Re: op=dk
At 11:40 AM 4/18/2005 -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Radu Hociung wrote:
Nonetheless, I find the discussion here valuable, as it tells me if the
community sees the value in the "others" functionality or not.
It's also
a good sanity check for me :)
I see SPF as the best IP based rfc2821 MAIL FROM / HELO identity
system. The
value of the "others" lies in addressing rfc2822 and other
identities (e.g.
PRA), and in providing cryptographic alternatives to IP based.
There is value in checking both an IP based and crypto based
system for the
same identity - because the IP based is more efficient (for a well
designed sender policy), and the crypto based would be checked only
if the IP based passes.
There is also value in making room for "others", even if they
don't provide
something fundamentally better or different than SPF. This value is in
breaking the current logjam where every group assumes the entire Internet
will adopt their method, and most adopters are waiting for someone else to
make the first move. SenderID won't like being relegated to just
an op= in
SPF, but there are people who think they must have it. Those people will
be more likely to adopt SPF if it is not so difficult to do SenderID also.
--
Actually, the reverse is true for Sender ID, today (based on the Sender ID
specs) if you publish an SPF record, you've published a Sender ID record
too.
So, FWIW, I think people would be more likely to adopt SPF if publishing an
SPF record didn't automagically make them do Sender ID too.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/technologies/senderid/resources.mspx
Scott Kitterman