Re: [spfbis] Meaning of SPF and domain authentication in general, was #12

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

Obviously, the intent was a private communication with Barry.  I wish 
to apologize to all, especially Murray.  While we do have conflicts, I 
honestly admire his dedication and work effort within the IETF. I hope 
we can resolve our differences.   For the record, I was open to 
dealing with the SIDF issue and possibly replace it with some 
SPF/DKIM/ADSP/ATPS combined manner since after all, we have 
implemented SPF, PRA/SUBMITTER, DKIM, ADSP, ATPS and VBR and 
streamlining all this is a high interest.  So I was not against the 
consideration if it could be done without negative repercussions.  I 
simply didn't believe the "usage" angle was the correct approach to 
justify the idea, it is a more complex issue.

Sincerely,

-- 
Hector Santos

Hector Santos wrote:
> (offlist)
> 
> Hi Barry,
> 
> What bothers me that statements were written with a principle focus to 
> replace SIDF with DKIM and there obvious issues that I believed where 
> simply wrong from many angles I don't wish to repeat, but it took me to 
> highlight issues because no else was.  Why did it even have get to this 
> level is vexing to me.