-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
SID-VS-SPF should be a new page that explains the issue: perhaps a
compilation of the IESG and IAB appeals, plus a reference to the SPF
community position <http://old.openspf.org>, plus a few very
concrete recommendations for domain owners and MTA admins.
Stuart, what's your status? I really think we need the SPF-vs-SID
page for the announcement. People will be looking for what this
SPF/SID confusion is about, and this is our best chance to get the
facts straigt.
Draft (#PRIVATE) here: [...]
I formatted it as a FAQ entry for the question:
Is SPF the same thing as Sender-ID? Which is better?
Excellent work (IMO), Stuart.
Here's the page (after Stuart and I worked some more on it):
http://new.openspf.org/SPF_vs_Sender_ID
Everyone please send your comments. The upcoming announcement will refer
to that page.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEY+VjwL7PKlBZWjsRAio4AJ93NPjO5HXO6483qhOHRlLm1uzYTwCfRGzH
aj1LKGEg1rIP13gBL3hy6R4=
=c9wl
-----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