-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
I suspect that the news of the appeals will hit the press eventually.
I would like to see something positive come out of it, but I suspect
that all that will happen is that this will be portrayed as being a
reason to use DKIM, rather than SPF. Moreover, since the SPF
community has been trying to distance itself from SenderID, I'm not
sure that we, as an official group, should any stance on the problems
with SenderID and the abuse of the resent-* headers.
Right. And, without wanting to discredit William's appeal (which I do
think was warranted and useful), the only of the two appeals that was
approved by the council (and thus by the project) was the one submitted by
me (after it had been criticized and improved by members of the
community), so we can and should concentrate on the outcome of _that_
appeal.
I do have an idea about what to do next, but I do not want to publicly
disclose the idea before we've got ye old experimental RFC, so I'll just
post it to the private council mailing list for now.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDmG8GwL7PKlBZWjsRAn8JAJ9t7bW4O/l7aqSSVDwK4oTx/ak/HgCdEb/h
fZaHTziRJYIpHfBIvehRQek=
=pf18
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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