Hector Santos wrote:
Maybe you should approach Hardie with the idea that SID
should be viewed as an SPF extension or ESPF draft - not
SPF2.
Have you seen...
<http://mid.gmane.org/x4y898bvb0(_dot_)fsf(_at_)footbone(_dot_)schlitt(_dot_)net>
...on the Council list ? It's something in this direction.
Wayne got also a reply, check out the Council list.
all parties need get real here.
That PRA doesn't work with v=spf1 policies without prior
explicit explicit consent is very real. We just discussed
a 2476bis "enforcement" on the SMTP list: MSAs could save
some mails threatened by PRA if they add a "Sender" header.
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.
The technical problem isn't the version number, as far as
I'm concerned they can do MFROM with v=spf1 policies. But
not PRA. No paseran.
tell Hardie "SID is a SPF extension" which is the truth.
How's that related to the real technical incompatibility ?
Why on earth do you think that talking to Mr. Hardie is a
plan ? If that's an idea you could as well talk to Meng,
he's the co-author of both drafts. IMNSHO we found that
this doesn't work.
If you want to try it anyway again just go, but please
check out that you have the real technical problems clear.
I miss your name on the open "SPF community pledge" list:
<http://www.OpenSPF.org/cgi-bin/openspf_pledge.cgi>
Bye, Frank