On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
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 :)
How about something like:
A large and diverse group of people came together through two IETF working
groups and together put in a tremendous amount of work on the problem for
more than a year. Unfortunately, their best efforts were unable to
overcome a dozen or so critical problems. The effort should not be viewed
as a complete loss. Thomas Edison is reported to have said, when asked
about the large number of failures in trying invent the lightbulb, that he
didn't fail at all, but just discovered a lot of ways not to make a
lightbulb. So, to take the most positive view: "We've just found another
way that won't help with the spam problem"
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000