In <CA634898-FCE8-4787-B860-669C685272D0(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> Douglas
Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> writes:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 5:56 PM, wayne wrote:
In <58CA41E0-1708-41A8-BE6B-7EBB343479A9(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> Douglas
Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org> writes:
This list remains available for continued discussions of any MARID
related issues. The spf-discuss reflector required participants to
first agree with the promotion of SPF. An insurmountable barrier
for some. : )
The SPF-discuss mailing list has never required you to agree with
the promotion of SPF.
Review the archive and you'll find a posting of the agreement
initially required before subscribing to spf-discuss. While it may
have changed, this was the reason for not participating on that list.
The MARID list is still functional.
Yes, I saw your post. People pointed out to you that you were wrong
back then, and you are still wrong today.
Constructive critisism is on-topic for the spf-discuss list. So is
the promotion of SPF. I have removed the suggestion that if you think
SPF is fundementally flawed that you should come here instead.
It wasn't until your -01 version of your draft that you actually
presented hard data in your Appendix A. Your data doesn't back up
your 1000x claims.
45 pages in the addendum trace SPF resolving a single name at about
64:1 increase in traffic.
Nice to see that you agree that your data doesn't back up your claims,
but even your 64:1 number is bogus.
-wayne