spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF 2/3 maybe it is time to get this going.

2005-06-18 15:25:49

Its not that I disagree with what you said, but I thought you had enough experience with IETF by now to understand why they'd never agree to it ...

ESPF sounds nice though and easier to use then saying unifiedspf.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Hector Santos wrote:


----- Original Message -----
From: "wayne" <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net>

Personally, I do not think the time is right to start working on the
next generation of SPF.  There is already enough confusion in the IESG
(and elsewhere) about whether SPFv1 is obsolete because SID uses
spf2.0 records.

Maybe you should approach Hardie with the idea that SID should be viewed as
an SPF extension or ESPF draft - not SPF2.

Come on, all parties need get real here. SPF1 is the basic technical
framework.  It is our "SMTP" and all the new stuff are drafted as ESMTP
standards.

So if Hardie is being pulled on one side by the big gorilla and friends, his
solution is to tell Microsoft to "do it right" as a ESPF draft - not SPF2
that replaces SPF1.

All future work on SPF should be viewed as ESPF on the same way we do ESMTP
for the basic SMTP framework.

Just tell Hardie "SID is a SPF extension" which is the truth.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>