-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman wrote:
What Doug will say is that the issue is already hopelessly confused and
that we are right in our complaint, but wrong in our remedy. He will
suggest that the only correct solution is to deprecate v=spf1 entirely
and have all Mail From checking be done only against SPF2.0 mfrom
records.
Yes, that's what he has been saying at the MAAWG conference two months
ago. As a matter of fact, I would even agree to that remedy (and in the
future promoting the publication of spf2.0 or spf2.1 only) if MS agreed
to go along with it, too. This I also said very explicitly at the MAAWG
SPF/S-ID interoperability BoF.
Interestingly this proposal has never been picked up by any significant
players in this political conflict, not to mention Microsoft. This
clearly shows that MS has a major interest in using the substantial
deployed base of SPFv1 and that they don't think they could build up
"their own" deployed base of spf2.0 in a comparably short time.
It is a complete coincidence that this would erase the deployment lead
that SPF currently has over CSV.
Perhaps true, but irrelevant since it's not going to happen anyway.
Still, Doug Otis might enjoy ridiculing our appeal. He certainly enjoyed
ridiculing both SPF and MS/Sender-ID at MAAWG.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDDH1GwL7PKlBZWjsRAvUFAJ9M28LiPLCfNstBGUzw+kE/zi46+QCfSWzw
BfHWLOait6WX8g2J+D2V4wg=
=fnRe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----