-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Mehnle [mailto:julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net]
Sent: donderdag 8 december 2005 12:05
To: SPF Council; SPF Discussion
Subject: [spf-council] Fwd: Re: Appeal: Publication of
draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced
draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
The IESG did consider this conflict in its original discussions, and
that is one of the reasons why we crafted the original IESG note to be
included in these documents, which highlights that there are concerns
about using these mechanisms in tandem.
The IESG takes no position about which approach is to be preferred and
cautions the reader that there are serious open issues for each approach
and concerns about using them in tandem.
Going over the text again with a fine comb, I must say I find the IESG's
wording "using them in tandem" quite maladroit. Because what does that
mean? Not to use both SenderID and SPF concurrently? By the world? Because
that is the only reasonable meaning: that the world, at large, should use
either one, but preferably not both. And I concur.
Not "using them in tandem" can certainly not refer to the individual;
because if a SenderID app, out there, abuses your "v=spf1" records, then
this is not something that you, the individual, can affect (and which
misuse will, if anything, backfire on the reputation of SPF). In fact, the
only one who can really ensure that both mechanisms are not "used"
together, is the IESG. And that is "used" in the rather warped sense of:
"We (the IESG) really should have said, that there are concerns about
PUBLISHING these mechanisms in tandem." Which would, of course,
have made them look silly. :)
And so we are stuck with a friendly warning "about using these mechanisms
in tandem" -- the meaning of which is empty to the individual, and really
only refers to a decision the IESG themselves should have made not to
publish them both. In short: they should have honored Julian's appeal.
- 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