In
<17349(_dot_)28111(_dot_)486409(_dot_)358726(_at_)saint(_dot_)heaven(_dot_)net>
"Dick St.Peters" <stpeters(_at_)NetHeaven(_dot_)com> writes:
Speaking for myself, it's a matter of interpretation. As I see it,
the SPF draft defines two scopes, an mfrom scope and a helo scope and
says to switch to the helo scope if the mfrom is empty.
Are you saying that you think the SenderID folks changed their concept
of the mfrom scope between their MARID drafts and their current
drafts?
Maybe you hadn't had a chance to read my reply mentioning that the
wording in the was the almost identical in the marid-mailfrom draft.
[...] and the SenderID authors aren't around
or aren't speaking up.
This is the SPF discussion group, not the SenderID discussion group.
None of the SenderID draft authors have participated here before, so
there is no reason to expect them to participate now. (Note: Meng is
listed as an author on one of the SenderID drafts, but according to
him, he hasn't done any work on them.)
I would say a better place to expect a reply from the SenderID folks
would be the IETF MARID mailing list where SenderID was created,
except they stopped talking there soon after MARID was closed.
Microsoft will spend tens of thousands of dollars to put on things
like the Email Authentication Summit last August, but unless you are a
billion dollar a year company, they have very little interest in
talking with you about SenderID. That's their choice, I guess.
-wayne
-------
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