If certain people had been a little more "PRO GROUP" and a little less "PRO
WHATEVER MS WANTS TO
PUSH" then I would agree with you.
But the facts are the facts:
-the suppression of anyone talking about the IP concerns
-the suppression of the original mail-from SPF functionality
-accepting the repeated disclosure delays from Microsoft
-giving the OK to the MS license which is clearly incompatible with a
significant portion of MTA's
-the suppression of alternative parallel scopes (until forced at the very end)
Therefore I cannot agree with you. It stank from day 1, and this effort of MS
to steal the IP of
SPF and related methods illustrates an ulterior motive from the start. The
good news is I don't
think it will work, providing the patent claims are fought off with prior art
disclosure, and the
fact that MS does NOT represent the majority of MTA's anyway.
Lets proceed with SPF Classic and/or Unified SPF.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Mark
Baugher
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 4:23 PM
To: Hadmut Danisch
Cc: IETF MARID WG
Subject: Re: MARID to close
I am sorry to read stuff like this and feel that the chairs did a
pretty good job and so did the IETF despite this particular
disappointment.
Mark
On Sep 22, 2004, at 11:44 AM, Hadmut Danisch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 01:10:25PM -0500, wayne wrote:
The failure of the AD and co-chairs to make sure that these
problems were resolved many months ago is an astounding failure.
I agree. They did their very best to ignore the major
problems and to aggressively make everyone quiet who tried
to mention the problems.
regards
Hadmut