Re: In support of Sender ID

[Yakov Shafranovich <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ryan Malayter wrote:
> [Mark C. Langston]
>
> > Could we perhaps dispense with the corporate (particularly executive)
> > endorsement posts for Sender-ID?  I thought people in the IETF
> > represented themselves.  The few times I've seen products 
> > mentioned, it was by the /developers/ of said products.
>
> We are all posting as individuals, except perhaps for "AccuSpam", which
> seems to be both a company and a person. If someone supports their
> organization's position on the Sender ID proposal, it is a somehow less
> valid endorsement? Even if they - horror of horrors - support SenderID
> as an individual BECAUSE their organization supports it?
>
> Obviously, you've got your knickers in a twist because these posters
> disagree with you. These posters are not violating any of the rules of
> this forum, as far as I can tell.

They are providing information on potential deployment. I find that 
information valuable.

Also, lets not lose sight of the fact that all these various people and 
companies are actually agreeing to deploy Sender-ID. That is a big 
accomplishment for something that isn't even a standard yet.

Yakov