On 6/24/05, wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
In <42BBB953(_dot_)9030507(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com> johnp
<johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com> writes:
It has to be said that an organisation which omits the only protocol
that has a million records already published and is in use by several
large operators, and which allows such an incompetent website and
webform to be made public, is very suspect in my book. What else are
they incapable of doing?
This is as much our fault as anyones. We, the SPF community, did not
push to get SPF on the FTC panel last fall.
-wayne
Wayne, I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit here.
While it would have been nice to have seen SPF formally represented,
there were enough people there (myself included) who raised the issues
of differences (and issues) between SPF vs SID that commonsense would
have dictated that the FTC include SPF test results in the
questionaire. The failure to do so is indicative of politics at play
rather than a sincere desire to find suitable technology approaches to
dealing with mail issues.
I'm going to assume that there will be a followup FTC email summit. If
anyone gets early warning, please post to the list. I would be
interested in attending.
Mike