Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:02:22AM -0600, wayne wrote:
But, I want to be clear, I don't think this note hurts us
significantly. It is really quite minor. I just don't think we had a
net gain from it.
The way I see it, the appeal results have made it clear that MS can't make
SenderID a Standard without making changes, while SPF could be made a
Standard.
Or did I imagine that?
Right... Micro$oft can make anything it wants a 'standard', even if it
does not meet any standards. This will be interesting to watch. Perhaps
some of the other big players on the internet will stand fast and not
conform?
In spite of RFCs, unfortunately the end user doesn't give a darn about
the technical aspects of things, but instead only wants 'their email to
work', to which, we as sysadmins either conform to their needs or lose
clients.
I do stand in hopes that MS doesn't get its greedy fingers around this
very basic area of the internet. And then comes free licensing... and
then comes paid licensing... and suddenly we're all forced to pay MS
dollars while not using anything worth paying for. And then the
licensing ends and you have to use a Microsoft Server product to
continue what suddenly is a standard........ One only needs to remember
Netscape/MSIE and how the US gov didn't even have enough money to fight
them.
Sorry... a sore subject here for me.
John Hinton
-------
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