-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2006-02-08 09:24, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think we can only legitimately use the number of records as a
basis for our argument that were published before late 2004.
This is what I did in the IESG appeal.
Right. But most readers of the v=spf1 spec. still see at best its
NOT RECOMMENDED. The new IESG NOTE with the senderid-core recipe
would be part of the RfC when it gets its number. It's perfectly
possible that somebody publishes a new v=spf1 without expecting any
PRA-trouble today.
I agree with Frank's evaluation. Unless someone was actively following
the twists and turns of the evolution of the standards they could have
no clue about the potential, and even suggested, abuse of the v=spf1
records. I think it would be a bad idea to make an issue of such
potential abuse on the web site until the RFCs are completed.
Also, don't underestimate the inertia of large companies in adopting
and deploying technologies such as SPF. Plans may well have been
initiated before MARID which have not yet reached fruition.
Cheers,
Kurt
- --
Kurt Andersen <kurta(_at_)agilent(_dot_)com>
Agilent Technologies Postmaster
Global Messaging Team, Agilent Technologies
+1 (509) 921-3792
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD6jti8aJC5m0EgMURAt38AJ9I1qP22a1fdoVQS3ghGXg+grKSNACfdDs3
wPgIJ/uuo8HRMVIXgsivwdU=
=AlVZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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