Please note that when I suggested an SSP record that would indicate that "We send no mail" it was pointed out forcefully that SPF could do that for me. So the effect on some was to think that SSP must be supportive of SPF/Sender ID, that is where that impression has been coming from. Thanks,
Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Peterson Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:19 AM To: Steve Atkins; DKIM WG Subject: [ietf-dkim] Next-generation SPF cabal > I think RFC 5016 shows a lack of understanding of DKIM (or is choosing > not to consider some important features of DKIM), and is > part of the push to try and build a next generation SPF on > an inappropriate base authentication technology. I really struggle with comments like these. I don't believe RFC 5016 is a push to build a "next generation SPF" but there's no response I can think of to this accusation. (Although "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife." comes to mind. :) ) This statement is subjective and attributes a specific motive to SSP/5016 supporters that can't be be rebutted without going down the ad hominem, unconstructive route. (And please don't take this as an argumentum ad hominem but rather as an argumentum ad nuncium. It is certainly not meant as an ad hominem and hopefully not taken as one.) pat _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
