Re: [spf-help] Re: SPF and SenderID

On 6/15/05, Douglas Otis <[email protected]> wrote:

> This advice is based upon a false impression that Microsoft waits for an
> RFC before producing product.  Recall draft-leach-cifs-v1-spec-02.txt?
> Consider spf2.0/mfrom and _removing_ v=spf1 as the safe reaction to
> Sender-ID.
> 

Doug,

This is exactly what Microsoft wants people to do. 

The correct action is for someone to force MS to back off (SPF
Council, FTC, IETF,EU...anyone listening) from what is essentially a
move to squash SPF. This could certainly be construed as an
anti-competitive action.

spf2.0/PRA lost in the marketplace. People simply weren't publishing
the records. People were publishing spf1 records at a significant rate
given that it wasn't even an "approved" standard. So, what better way
to cause problems for SPF AND co-opt the spf1 records that people were
publishing.

You don't resolve an issue of someone doing a wrong thing by giving in
through a work around that gives validation to the publication of
"their" (SPF2.0) record.

This also begs the question of who controls the SPF record format. Can
anyone come up with their own mechanisms willy-nilly? Does the SPF
Council control SPF? If not, who does? What about spf3.x and forward?

As usual, just my 2 cents.

Mike