WebMaster at Commerco
Feb 9, 2008, 12:29 PM
Re: Statement of Problems and Requirements (Last Call)
[In reply to]
At 12:33 PM 2/9/2008, you wrote:
>On Saturday 09 February 2008 13:41, David MacQuigg wrote:
> > At 11:59 PM 2/6/2008 -0500, Scott K wrote:
> > >Are we calling forwarders, forwarders yet or are you still changing
> > > existing terminology?
.. snip ..
> > We should also make it clear in any discussion with someone outside the SPF
> > community, that we are using the term "forwarding" in a more limited way
> > than they might understand. This will avoid problems when we say things
> > like "all forwarders should re-write the Return Address", and they think we
> > are talking about a Transmitter.
>Any approach that takes the view "We are using words you are used to, but to
>mean different things." is doomed to fail. Looking back, it was the new term
>for open relay I objected to before.
I appreciate the spirit of your statement and tend to agree with it,
but I don't think that is what Dave is doing or talking about here.
He appears to want to take the broad term "open relay" and subset the
group of acceptable forwarders to separate what some argue are the
good purposes of an "open relay" in order to cement definitions that
we can work with as a group which focus on specific problems that can
then be addressed with a common lexicon for discussion.
For that I'm quite open to see this process run its course. As I
watch this progress, I get the feeling we are zeroing in on both the
issues that create objections to SPF by some and possibly might get
to some acceptable answers which apply to the potential SPF adopters
out there who have concerns regarding the still vague or non-existent
answers to these questions.
If we can take and address the questions that are left hanging out
there by some to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about SPF
and answer them acceptably to the vast majority of those who may
still have concerns based upon the FUD out there, then perhaps we get
more SPF adopters.
This seems a simple and fairly direct approach to problem solving and
so I think it appropriate to give Dave the opportunity to let this
process play out.
After we have gone through the process, we can revisit the
terminology, if needed.
>Where there is existing, understood terminology use it. If you need
>to add an
>additional disctinction, add it, don't change it (e.g. open-relay operator
>more clearly means what I think whatever it was I complained about last
>time). If you can't do that, then make up an entirely different term. Don't
>try and overload existing ones.
The Commerce Company
TZ.Com - Travel Zippy
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=93127865-92ca6f
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com