Mailing List Archive

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Hal <haroldb@truemountainconsulting.com> wrote:
> Microsoft has removed most SenderID information from its website, and in
> particular http://www.microsoft.com/senderid now redirects to a Forefront anti-
> SPAM product page.  It seems like it is time to move the SenderID vs SPF
> discussion to a more past-tense wording, which hopefully encourages greater
> adoption of SPF.
>
> http://hal2020.com/2011/05/02/has-microsoft-put-the-nail-in-the-coffin-on-
> senderid/
>
>

My understanding is that this is likely only a temporary situation.
Microsoft still uses SIDF. Personally I'd prefer that everyone not get
in an uproar. SIDF is what it is and those who use it are who they
are. My personal recommendation to folks when I give email
authentication training is that they use spf2.0/mfrom with the same
contents as their spf1 record.

Everyones time would be much better served by a discussion on whether
(I am supportive) to move SPF to standards track (remember, it is
still experimental) within IETF. This could either be through working
group or as an independent submission through openspf.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110503112609:F432C8A6-7599-11E0-8B52-EE64A349F165
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Hal <haroldb@truemountainconsulting.com> wrote:
> Microsoft has removed most SenderID information from its website, and in
> particular http://www.microsoft.com/senderid now redirects to a Forefront anti-
> SPAM product page.  It seems like it is time to move the SenderID vs SPF
> discussion to a more past-tense wording, which hopefully encourages greater
> adoption of SPF.
>
> http://hal2020.com/2011/05/02/has-microsoft-put-the-nail-in-the-coffin-on-
> senderid/
>
>

My understanding is that this is likely only a temporary situation.
Microsoft still uses SIDF. Personally I'd prefer that everyone not get
in an uproar. SIDF is what it is and those who use it are who they
are. My personal recommendation to folks when I give email
authentication training is that they use spf2.0/mfrom with the same
contents as their spf1 record.

Everyones time would be much better served by a discussion on whether
(I am supportive) to move SPF to standards track (remember, it is
still experimental) within IETF. This could either be through working
group or as an independent submission through openspf.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110503112610:AAF39A44-7599-11E0-B89C-DEE76183CF48
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Hal <haroldb@truemountainconsulting.com> wrote:
>> Microsoft has removed most SenderID information from its website, and in
>> particular http://www.microsoft.com/senderid now redirects to a Forefront anti-
>> SPAM product page.  It seems like it is time to move the SenderID vs SPF
>> discussion to a more past-tense wording, which hopefully encourages greater
>> adoption of SPF.
>>
>> http://hal2020.com/2011/05/02/has-microsoft-put-the-nail-in-the-coffin-on-
>> senderid/
>>
>>
>
> My understanding is that this is likely only a temporary situation.
> Microsoft still uses SIDF. Personally I'd prefer that everyone not get
> in an uproar. SIDF is what it is and those who use it are who they
> are. My personal recommendation to folks when I give email
> authentication training is that they use spf2.0/mfrom with the same
> contents as their spf1 record.
>
> Everyones time would be much better served by a discussion on whether
> (I am supportive) to move SPF to standards track (remember, it is
> still experimental) within IETF. This could either be through  working
> group or as an independent submission through openspf.
>

It appears it is a temporary issue (which tehy are fixing) .... it can
be reached if you use
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/content/technologies/senderid/wizard/default.aspx


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110503151631:D79A43A2-75B9-11E0-8C71-C810BA1C21DC
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Hal <haroldb@truemountainconsulting.com> wrote:
>> Microsoft has removed most SenderID information from its website, and in
>> particular http://www.microsoft.com/senderid now redirects to a Forefront anti-
>> SPAM product page.  It seems like it is time to move the SenderID vs SPF
>> discussion to a more past-tense wording, which hopefully encourages greater
>> adoption of SPF.
>>
>> http://hal2020.com/2011/05/02/has-microsoft-put-the-nail-in-the-coffin-on-
>> senderid/
>>
>>
>
> My understanding is that this is likely only a temporary situation.
> Microsoft still uses SIDF. Personally I'd prefer that everyone not get
> in an uproar. SIDF is what it is and those who use it are who they
> are. My personal recommendation to folks when I give email
> authentication training is that they use spf2.0/mfrom with the same
> contents as their spf1 record.
>
> Everyones time would be much better served by a discussion on whether
> (I am supportive) to move SPF to standards track (remember, it is
> still experimental) within IETF. This could either be through  working
> group or as an independent submission through openspf.
>

It appears it is a temporary issue (which tehy are fixing) .... it can
be reached if you use
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/content/technologies/senderid/wizard/default.aspx


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110503151629:D7354164-75B9-11E0-ABE9-F8BA3C28EE7F
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

> Everyones time would be much better served by a discussion on whether
> (I am supportive) to move SPF to standards track (remember, it is
> still experimental) within IETF. This could either be through  working
> group or as an independent submission through openspf.

To be clear: it can't be done as an INDEPENDENT submission;
standards-track documents can ONLY go through the IETF Stream, not the
Independent Stream (nor the IAB Stream, nor the IRTF Stream...).

It could be done as an INDIVIDUAL submission, which would still
require community-wide last call (4 weeks) and IESG approval. It
would also require a sponsoring Area Director, and, given the current
composition of the IESG, that would likely have to be Pete Resnick.
So, anyone thinking of doing this should start by talking with Pete.

Barry
(DKIM working group chair and IETF liaison to MAAWG)


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110504185211:23A58FE4-76A1-11E0-88AE-CD1B6DEE0417
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

> Everyones time would be much better served by a discussion on whether
> (I am supportive) to move SPF to standards track (remember, it is
> still experimental) within IETF. This could either be through  working
> group or as an independent submission through openspf.

To be clear: it can't be done as an INDEPENDENT submission;
standards-track documents can ONLY go through the IETF Stream, not the
Independent Stream (nor the IAB Stream, nor the IRTF Stream...).

It could be done as an INDIVIDUAL submission, which would still
require community-wide last call (4 weeks) and IESG approval. It
would also require a sponsoring Area Director, and, given the current
composition of the IESG, that would likely have to be Pete Resnick.
So, anyone thinking of doing this should start by talking with Pete.

Barry
(DKIM working group chair and IETF liaison to MAAWG)


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110504185209:5C695C3E-76A1-11E0-9C63-1284F559ED1D
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>> Everyones time would be much better served by a discussion on whether
>> (I am supportive) to move SPF to standards track (remember, it is
>> still experimental) within IETF. This could either be through  working
>> group or as an independent submission through openspf.
>
> To be clear: it can't be done as an INDEPENDENT submission;
> standards-track documents can ONLY go through the IETF Stream, not the
> Independent Stream (nor the IAB Stream, nor the IRTF Stream...).
>
> It could be done as an INDIVIDUAL submission, which would still
> require community-wide last call (4 weeks) and IESG approval.  It
> would also require a sponsoring Area Director, and, given the current
> composition of the IESG, that would likely have to be Pete Resnick.
> So, anyone thinking of doing this should start by talking with Pete.
>
> Barry
> (DKIM working group chair and IETF liaison to MAAWG)
>

Thanks for the correction Barry. My point being that there are two
alternative paths to moving SPF forward and that refighting the
SPF/SIDF wars will likely lead to suboptimal outcomes.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110505084436:A795DBFA-7715-11E0-A7B0-00BEF559ED1D
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com