On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:13:45 -0500 (EST), "Stuart D. Gathman"
<stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> wrote:
After wading through the hysteria, there are only two problems with
what Microsoft has done wrt sender-ID:
2) their spec (and implementation?) reuses SPF records and pretends they
describe PRA instead of MFROM.
Problem 2 is a *huge* problem.
That is why we filed an appeal. It is cyber-abuse, pure and simple.
Seems like I read it was denied because the RFCs are experimental.
Yes, sender-ID will coexist nicely with the other technologies if they
only address problem 2. The problem is, their mentality can't conceive
of "embrace" without it being followed by "extend" and "extinguish".
If you can you explain why problem 2 is so bad, in language a dummy
can understand, maybe I will see the light.
-------
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