Subject: If not Sender I.D., then what? (Was Re: In support of Sender ID)

From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 14:13:27 -0700

> > I submit that the From address of the message in question was "Leon
> > Rishniw". As you say, we are supposed to assume we all represent
> > ourselves as individuals here.
> >
> > So to me, that message says "Leon Rishniw supports SenderID because
> > Cloudmark organizationally supports it." That's his opinion, and I 
> think
> > he's just as entitled to express it as you are entitled to express
> > yours.
>
> So you'll be okay with all those people speaking up for their
> organizations, stating that their organizations won't be implementing
> it?
>
> Fair enough.  The SETI Institute won't be implementing Sender-ID.

I have a question.  I was given to believe that generally in the the 
call for support/rejection, the question is, and only is, "should we 
recommend this?", and nothing else.  BUT, given the uniqueness of the 
situation, and that there *are* alternatives, would it be useful (or 
forbidden?) for people to say not only "We won't deploy Sender-I.D." 
but also "we *will* deploy SPF" or "we also won't deploy SPF" or "we 
will deploy this other alternative"?

I ask because there is great pressure, both external and internal, to 
implement something - *anything* it seems.  And a fair bit of "if you 
toss Sender I.D. because of unclear IP concerns, there will be nothing, 
and the devil you know is better than no devil at all" (to mix 
metaphors).  So I wonder whether this would be useful data.

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:41:18 -0400

On Sep 3, 2004, at 5:13 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:

> So I wonder whether this would be useful data.

At this point, what is most useful is the reason inhibiting deployment. 
  And many people have been quite clear about that.

-andy