On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 15:52 -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
"SPF is breaking the mail system for no good reason. Forwarding has
worked perfectly well in the past; it is SPF which is changing; it is
SPF which is wrong. SPF should not be deployed because there are better
ways of achieving the same thing, without the need for such changes."
I think there was more to it than this:
I'd say that "After more than a year of intense technical analysis by 2
IETF working groups, in then end, SPF didn't achieve any of the stated
goals, and made some problems such as 'blowback' much worse." Perhaps
this is aptly summarized as "SPF is breaking the mail system for no
good reason." I guess I'd take that as an executive summary.
Well yes, but I was trying to follow Chris' lead -- be fair to both
sides, and use neutral language :)