Although I am and have been a supporter of the SPF standard for
several years now, these words from the article you site -
"The key word here is "existing," which in context means "now
existing." The question thus arises, what about future versions of
the same standards? "
brought several thoughts to mind not only as regards the future of
existing standards, but also as to what of any new standards which
may seek to solve a common problem using a similar
methodology? There are only so many ways to go about dealing with
the issue of domain identity theft in email, doubtless future efforts
will tread over territory which may be perceived as "owned territory"
by the company filing said Open Specification Promise (OSP).
All that said, I suppose it all comes down to the spirit of the
document and if one trusts its authors.
Alan Maitland
WebMaster(_at_)Commerco(_dot_)Net
At 05:27 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here's a professional attorney's view of Microsoft's Open Specification
Promise (OSP):
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20060912140103877
What do you think with regard to Sender ID and free software licenses such
as the GPL after reading that?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFVRj+wL7PKlBZWjsRAkz1AJ4jcbgWRqXuxyOOlcOsSm5uhesgjQCg+SiW
KLWXAGIkbJPN2eDNcW8eiBk=
=vpdD
-----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/?list_id=735
-------
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/?list_id=735