"Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote in message
These were three completely unrelated points: You said that
any assumption of PRA = MAIL FROM works only for 80% of the
mails you see. End of first point, quoted authority = you.
The exact statistic measure stated numerous times can be summarized as:
- Over 80% of transactions, 2822.PRA = 2821.Mail From
and for that reason, it makes PRA/SENDERID a highly redundant, high
overhead 2822 based protocol where for 80% of the time, the same result
can be achieved at the 821 level. To ignore it at 821 would be highly
unethical, inefficient and represent poor engineering.
I do admit that I never felt assured you understanding that point. But
I attributed it that you just didn't believe it and was more interested
in the annal retentive administrative and documentation style of input
and arguments.
Rest assured that I don't consider you as my buddy,
We know that Frank. You're shown that very clearly.
I have no wish to kiss you or anybody else in the IETF,
But the fact remains, you show this very clearly as well.
and TTBOMK Keith doesn't like SPF, to put it very mildly.
I don't know what TTBOMK means, nor do I care, but these statements
suggest Keith doesn't like SPF, that is well understood. He doesn't
like much any other system and for good reason....
And that's also the
reason why such opinions might help, nobody could dispute their
critical "neutral POV".
Not when you are BULK MAILER Software Writer and have actively
petitioned to USFTC to stop anti-porn legistration saying it is best to
let user's decide what is good or bad porn (not SMTP or Local Mail
Policies defining how software should behave).
That isn't a NEUTRAL POV at all. Besides, we have enough neutral
positions that get us no where. Strong informative expertise with direct
work is often what works best.
Rest of your completely beside the point rant skipped, I'm not
at all interested in your flamewars, insults, and ad hominems.
Neither am I, but sure do know how to stir it. No doubt.
If you wanted to say that your old 80% statement was incorrect
and Julian shouldn't mention it in his appeal better try again.
Wasn't my interest, it is now clear it was yours.
Now that I see Julian has your arguments for the appeal, now I know for
sure this would be a waste of time!
Have a good one.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
-------
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