Re: So here it is one year later...

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 20:37 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Gordon Fecyk wrote:
> 
> > no press from the SPF crowd

pobox.com still has the slogan:
  Sender Policy Framework, an essential part of Sender ID.

And although the link has been modified, it continues to indicate the
current SPF draft is:

http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/spf/draft-lentczner-spf-00.txt

> The "SPF crowd" has a position on Sender-ID (Dec 2004):

Quote from this faction:

"Many SPF developers and users consider that Microsoft's SenderID
proposal is technically unsound and undermines the progress already
begun by SPF. SPF development and deployment predate Microsoft's entry
into the field and have achieved significant success to date. SenderID,
in its most recent form, appears likely to interfere with the correct
function and deployment of SPF."
...

"Where SenderID breaks the function of existing v=spf1 records, domain
owners will only learn of it when legitimate mail is not delivered.  SPF
record publishers made their records public with the expectation that
they would be used with the SPF algorithm.  SenderID puts those records
to a different, possibly incompatible use, without any consent from the
publishers."

Agreed; applying a record against different algorithms than that
intended when published is inherently deleterious, even though SPF still
prevents delivery of mail from forwarding and some list servers. : (

> An updated draft was published (January 2005):
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt>

Once again the algorithm changes and still this draft uses the same
labels and record identifiers?  Classic.

Endorsements from those that block all bounce traffic are not likely
concerned about mail lost as a result of forwarding or being from
various list servers, so it would seem.  Based upon these comments,
SPF/Sender-ID reduces mail integrity in the bargain.  

-Doug