OT: RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity

Well now that's ironic, MS asking someone to "not use/change something someone else defined".

What's next, MS saying "please don't use FUD"?  :)

Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
[email protected] 
Fax: (416) 441-9085


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jim Lyon
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:20 PM
> To: william(at)elan.net
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity
> 
> 
> 
> William,
> 
> SUBMITTER as defined by your draft is a different concept 
> than SUBMITTER
> as defined by draft-ietf-marid-submitter-xx.  Related, but different.
> 
> Your argument is that all would be well if we dropped the semantics
> specified by draft-ietf-marid-submiter, and changed the specs 
> to use the
> semantics you supply.  While this might make everything fine from your
> perspective, it doesn't from mine.  I for one decline your invitation.
> 
> Your comment that we should give the IETF and implementers a choice
> about which to use is exactly on point.  The easiest way to 
> do so is to
> have different extensions, so that MTAs in conversation know exactly
> what is meant by each other.
> 
> Since the name SUBMITTER is already in use by
> draft-ietf-marid-submitter, please choose another name.
> 
> 
> -- Jim Lyon
> 

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, 
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[email protected]