-----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 Julian
Mehnle
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:07 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Clarification on "RFC Editor Note"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
William Leibzon wrote:
Having read Mr Hardie's response, I believe he may have misunderstanding
regarding concerns of the people involved in SPF Community and has
incorrectly assumed that we're trying to interfere with somebody else's
experiment and trying to prevent it from running.
Actually, we _do_. We _do_ want to prevent an experiment where plain
v=spf1 records are used for checking non-HELO/MAILFROM identities.
The important question is if that exact experiment is what certain parties
want to happen. I very much doubt that the IESG or just the AD want it,
but obviously Microsoft's interests are different.
Perhaps we just need to believe that what MS is doing is in fact an
"experiment". If it's just a science fair that won't be used in production,
who cares. Perhaps we say "NOT RECOMMENDED for production use" instead of just
"NOT RECOMMENDED". Then if someone checks PRA against an SPF version 1 record
in a production environment, it's very clear where the fault lies, but no one
can complain that we're preventing their "experiment".
Scott Kitterman