Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 10:38:23PM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
SPF Council would like request that SPF Community provide better
indication as to if an appeal to IETF IAB should or should not be made in
regards to misuse of v=spf1 records by Sender ID experiment. We request
that members of SPF Community (especially those who have not posted about
it before) clearly show their opinion on this issue and indicate
appropriate action (if any) that should be taken.
<snippage>
Personally, right now, I think MS should just be ignored. This may
change (like any opinion).
Personally, I think MS should 'never' be ignored. ;) Their track record
over many years is to conquer and destroy. At the same time forcing 'MS
Standards' into 'World Standards' by delivering them to the masses (can
anyone say MSIE? and gee, wasn't it MS that wrecked SPF/SenderID in the
first place?). But I do understand what Alex is saying.
Would a six month delay actually play into the hands of MS, allowing
them more time to put into the hands of the consumer a botched SenderID
system? I think it would, but I don't know if it really matters as they
will very likely deliver it anyway. Since the consumer doesn't give a
darn about RFCs, they just want their email to work.. and anything
advertised as anti-spam technology will be readily received by that same
public.
Having said all of this, I vote to not do the appeal.. pray for some
sane decisions by the the IEFT IAB and get on with the process of
allowing SPF to become a standard at which point hopefully the 'other'
big players on the internet will begin to make real use of the standard.
Meanwhile, if we can do as much as possible to promote SPF, perhaps
we'll be able to circumvent yet another bad idea from Seattle. That will
take getting it to the public as quickly as possible.
An appeal could actually blow up in our faces, both politically with the
public and with regards to time delays playing into the hands of MS.
The thing that is really wrong with this whole situation is why would
SPF be time penalized for pointing out the errors of another system?
That just seems backwards.
Best Regards,
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