...... Original Message .......
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:34:12 -0400 (EDT) "Stuart D. Gathman"
<stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, wayne wrote:
Some progress on the website front. The spf.pobox.com domain is now
pointing to the box that Julian and I are working on for the website.
It is currently still running *exactly* the same code as the old
spf.pobox.com site. We want to change one variable at a time.
Thank you, thank you, for addressing the website problem.
Question, is there another alias for the site that does not say
'pobox.com'?
I saw some domains offered here on the list, but I haven't seen any mention
of actually pointing any of them to it.
Pobox.com is not always exemplary of proper SPF behaviour. Other
than that, I don't mind giving them credit for sponsoring SPF. But a
neutral name would be better, and then list pobox.com as a founder/sponsor
on the site.
When you finish your careful "First, do no harm" approach, the first thing
I want to see fixed is the language about SenderID. It shouldn't be
critical of SenderID, but should make it clear the SID is about a
completely different (and patented) identity from a different RFC, and
while it
might share a common infrastructure with spf2.0, it is not at all
compatible
with or an extension of spf1.
I also second the recommendation from Scott Kitterman concerning the
language for the forwarding "problem".
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
I've offerred senderpolicy.com/net/org/us. They are currently parked at
godaddy.
I'll forward them to spf.schlitt.net tomorrow. If someone will host the
zone files, I'd point it to the ip for real.
Scott K