WebMaster(_at_)Commerco(_dot_)Net wrote:
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
Microsoft's track record speaks volumes. Just ask IBM about DOS!
Aggressive business tactics has been their most outstanding single
theme. We have to admire that! Anybody remember Deskview? OH, and we're
going to give away MSIE... just ask Netscape (they had started rolling
in the dough). Wordperfect anyone (yes, at one time they were number
one)? Basically, their record has been to dominate any software market
that seems to be making money.. or has a huge need.. which can then be sold.
I would love it if Microsoft was in fact planning to do something for
free without a license... forever including upgrades... but they seem to
wiggle everything into a 'must use a MS product' to make whatever they
do work. The future of SenderID? Well, it wouldn't surprise me one bit
if they gave away the early first release version, only to create
version 2 which only runs under a MS mailserver.
But, maybe I'm just leery... and maybe this is for real.. For me, I'm
going to stand back and watch for some years to come.. to see where this
'really goes'. It's just too easy to do something like give away
Frontpage with NT3.5 and various Office products.. and then advertise
FPSEs, which yes, do run under Linux.. but IMHO kill security and is a
'licensed' product, making it hard to install and hard to maintain...
and will never run as well under Linux as it does under Windows...
So, are they giving away the next little tidbit... to be followed by
some other tidbits.. then suddenly a 'upgrade' (still free and doesn't
require a license) requires something proprietary? Meanwhile us
sysadmins have our users on it and MS has built it into Outlook. No we
don't have to use it.. but if the masses use it, we are pressed into
using it... or losing our clients.
Really, it's not the document.. it's the mindset of the company. As for
legal.. remember, the US Federal Government couldn't even afford to
'really' take on Microsoft... or IBM for that matter. Can you?
Best,
A skeptical for a long time John Hinton
-------
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