----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Greg Connor" <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
Cc: "IETF MARID WG" <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: Differences between CSV and Sender-ID
GC> and that HELO is of secondary importance.
I'm not sure whether you noticed, but there is a rather different tone
in the comments about HELO checking now than there was a month or so
ago.
Actually, what I notice is a difference in your own tone. First, last
year, you "pulled a fast one" by having everyone, including the ASRG,
focused on SMTP compatibility.
http://www.brandenburg.com/specifications/draft-crocker-spam-techconsider-02.txt
To paraphrase: "Remember Compatibility, Incremental changes is the key
folks."
Many, including myself were talking about the necessary for changed,
including the key interest to focus of SMTP compliancy, including HELO for
over a year now.
But ever since SPF has forced the issue with MARID, you have been every
active and provided new work focusing on what many already knew.
Now you want us to change our servers in drastic ways!
I'm sorry for own tone (blame it a few jacks, ok four), but I don't
appreciate the lack of common courtesy to respond to my atleast 1 of my
inputs or comments to your CVS specification. I listened to your concerns
about the WG tangents. I spent quality time reviewing all the 3 docs (39
pages) and serious considering for implementation. Not one response from
you. NADA! If my comments "do not apply" or "bother you," I would only
know with FEEDBACK and then I won't have to be wasting more time.
Oh well, you are going to ignore this also anyway, so never mind.
Thanks
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com