Hi all,
Having accepted my nomination, I would like to outline, briefly, where I
like to see SPF headed.
I would like to see the matter of SPFv1 getting RFC status "wrapped up" as
soon as possible. I think, at this point, that it should be our highest
priority (perhaps even more so than last year, what with all delays and
appeals and all). As such, I should come right out and say that, if
elected, I will not support a motion to escalate appeal(s) to the IAB.
Though I agreed, in full, with the first set of appeals, I believe now is
the time to move on, get SPFv1 to RFC status as soon as possible, and not
ourselves any longer be a hindrance to that process. My rationale simply
being that I do not see any benefit in doing so; chances are,
realistically, that we will get absolutely nothing out of it, and only
alienate relevant parties unnecessarily.
In keeping with the above, I would like to see us start as soon as
possible on SPFv2.1. Because of SPF "pass", I'd like us to look into
various early-out mechanisms that will become a 'fixed' (now optional)
part of SPF; like HELO checks (possibly in combination with reputation
checks). And add clear scope parameters to differentiate between classis
v=spf1 and PRA usage.
When elected, I would like the new Council to consider instituting a web
board, vbulletin style or otherwise, so as to have a more structured
(read: more accessible) public interface than the mail archives. This
board would primarily contain a series of standard topics, like: "How to
publish my SPF records", "Where can I find SPF-enabled registrars?",
"Libspf2 matters", etc. But not as static FAQs, but as discussion forums.
Though I dislike the manner in which MicroSoft allows Sender-ID to abuse
v=spf1 records, still, I think the reality is that their use of 'our' type
of records, is something we can, and should build on. Looking back,
myself, over the last year -- and doing so only in the broadest of terms
-- I think we can be pretty pleased with what we accomplished. But, devoid
of any judgement whatsever, in hindsight, I think we may have been a wee
too obstructive, now and then, when it came to cooperating with others
(regardles of the fact, that I felt at the time -- and still do -- that we
did so on sound technical merit). Over the year, though, I've been having
somewhat of a growing sense of unrest over pushing ourselves out of the
game, so to speak (as per my first item). And I believe a new Council
would do well to seek a quick, and aimiable, integration with other, major
players out there. I mean, we have always known that SPF, by itself, was
never going to be the end-all-be-all of anti- spam/forgery/whatever. It
was always meant to become an element -- be it a vital one -- in a larger
chain.
Thanks for your consideration.
- 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