On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 07:34:08PM +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Compliance_Logo
Please send your comments!
The "simple version" has a black border. It's probably because I'm a
bit tired right now: When moving my eyes from one side of the screen
to the other side, this border appears to flash a bit.
I don't know if this is a good thing (an eye catcher!) or a bad thing.
The 'S' in SPF and the 't' in compliant touch the edge.
I don't like this.
Apart from that: Nice logo! Erm... I ment:
Nice stamp of approval. Stamps... mail... get it?
The eventual license is supposed to be a restrictive one, i.e. the council
would probably have to confirm an implementation's compliance (either by
itself or through some delegate) and then grant a specific license to the
maker of the software to use the logo in association with the software.
For an indefinite amount of time; until the software changes or until
the SPF council revokes the license.
These restrictions are necessary to guaranty the stamp is and stays
valuable. Both the software and the test suite can evolve.
Software manufacturers will have to get a new approval every time they
update their software (within reason?)
Should a major bug be found in the test suite, software will have to be
retested using the new test suite.
Of course, any implementation that applies SPF (v1) records to the email
body is bogus and should not receive the approval, no matter what the
outcome of testing it against a test suite is. Such an implementation
is not 4408 compliant!
Or we could try a liberal approach, although I'm not sure whether it could
work.
“Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send”.
Jon Postel.
Don't send out licenses liberally.
Alex
-------
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