-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Mehnle [mailto:julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net]
Sent: donderdag 8 december 2005 14:58
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Outcome of the IESG appeals
From the IESG's point of view, this is the only appropriate solution.
They are approving both SPF and SenderID, and so a note needs to be
made in the SPF spec about the conflict.
I already said that I can see the value of such a note. But you
missed my point. The note tries very hard to be "vendor neutral",
without noticing that such a kind of neutrality isn't actually appro-
priate here.
I can see the value of the note too, as the prospective user of SenderID
is, once more, pointed to the prospect of losing legitimate mail when
reusing "v=spf1" records; so he may now think twice to go that route.
I had rather seen a different, more decisive outcome, of course. Unlike
wayne, though, I do not really see how the extra note can harm us (unless
he means that having the note inserted in all four I-Ds only adds to the
confusion).
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com