Re: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt

On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 05:34 +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Douglas Otis wrote:
> 
> > in the case of SPF version 1, whether the sender expected the
> > bounce-address or the PRA be used as a basis for acceptance

Who is really most deserving of this eloquent message?

Care to comment on this message? 
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05502.html

Or, how about this message?
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05572.html

You are ignoring a reality that Microsoft has usurped the definition of
the v=spf1 record and clearly has this record in their pocket.  This is
evidenced by their clout at various email conferences.  The "bounce-
address" and not "PRA" version of SPF must be defined by the version 2
record.  The sooner SPF advocates accept this, the greater the chances
SPF will not morph into Sender-ID by way of a reputation trap.

-Doug