----- Original Message -----
From: "David MacQuigg" <david_macquigg(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:37 AM
Subject: [spf-discuss] Problem with SID
It would help if someone could provide a clear, concise statement of the
PRA/SPF problem and post it on the new website. I'll help with the
wording
to make sure it is clear to non-experts.
That might depend on your point of view.
For me, it is matter of PAYLOAD analysis promotion which in my strong view,
will be the worst mistake the industry can make to address the email
problem.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that PRA is flawed in that it
presumed 2822 headers that may not be there or is wrong, which is others
will say.
It doesn't solve anything but increase your payload bandwidth.
See http://mipassoc.org/csv/CSV-Comparison.html for an example of clear,
concise, and unemotional criticism. The one place where the CSV statement
*isn't* clear, unfortunately, is the confusion over SPF record
interpretation. Under "Clarity and Safety" the statement is " ... there
is
even some question about the ways in which SPF and Sender-ID records are
interpreted. Such confusion defeats interoperation and reliable email
delivery."
It's taken as a hit to both SPF and SID. At least that seems to be the
view of the CSV crowd.
Well, of course, Dave, Doug & Company have agendas to push CSV. Do you
expect anything less? CSV has the 3rd party DNA concept and we know that
you like this idea. :-)
The fact is CSV has not been put through working groups to get a thorough
industry wide workout. And when it has been discussed in various places,
Dave has only accepted what he wanted to hear, from whom he wanted to hear
it and ignore the rest. And Doug is simply a never ended pre-recorded
message saying the same old thing over and over again, ignoring your
comments but using the opportunity to rewind and replay the pre-recorded
messages.
But rest assured, from my standpoint, I have stated what were my concerns
and problems including citing inconsistency in CSV which I will not waste
time to hash out again, nor is this forum the appropriate place to discuss
it.
Just consider the following:
If CSV was the cats meow, then why isn't one using it in any significant
numbers, like more than 1 person? Do you see any commercial SMTP vender
supporting it or have it place?
CSV means change at levels that is significantly larger than SPF or any
other proposal under consideration. It assumes a dependency that simply
will not be there without the massive changes across the board.
Well, the day that CHANGE is required across the board and everyone follows
it, rest assured you will see atleast a DOZEN new proposals that will solve
the email problem once and for all.
The irony of CSV is that it was Dave that has helped put barriers up in new
SMTP R&D creativity of looking for a solution by publishing his infamous
"ASRG Guideline" on how to approach ASRG with backward compatibility as the
most fundamental paramount consideration.
Once the LMAP proposals came out and started to get serious consideration,
he decided to bring his own rule and came up with CSV.
Go figure.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com