spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED

2005-05-08 16:49:27
wayne wrote:

it would be best if we stopped calling it SenderID because
SenderID is a trademark of another email system

That's what Harry, Jim, and Meng say in the title of their
drafts (draft-lyon-senderid-core etc.) and there's no better
name for it:  it's more than only PRA, but not quite the
same as the complete spf2.0 (e.g. William's spf2.0/submit
is no part of Sender-ID)

I think Andy worked hard to try and manage a bad situation.

ACK, actually I liked and trusted him until MARID was closed.

I think it was mostly Ted Hardie that overruled the co-chairs
and forced through the MS changes.

I'm not sure that he's the "bad" guy.  Maybe he just tried to
support Andy, Meng, and MarkL (Marshall is an Internet legend
and needs no AD as shepherd ;-)  After all he sponsored your
draft.  Okay, he also sponsored the other drafts.  Which are
at the moment in state "new I-D requested", unlike your text.

Andy, for example, was one of only two people to actually do
research on the effectiveness of the MARID proposals, MarkL
was the other.

Yes, I know.  But all he did also fits if he actually wanted
Sender-ID.  He was very upset when you mumbled something like
"over my dead body".  And a few days later MARID was closed.
So I'm very careful not to blame Ted any more than necessary.

"Somebody" apparently talked me out of upholding my appeal,
don't you think ?  Don't forget that I could live with the
spf2.0/pra + spf2.0/mfrom idea, with the latter as MARID-SPF.

It only needed some critical details as you have them now in
your draft, mainly processing limits and proper error handling.

                              Bye, Frank