On Thursday 22 January 2004 12:22 pm, Alain Knaff wrote:
Very nice argument...but what if, as many readers here suspect, this
"unnamed important mystery stakeholder" actually _is_ Microsoft ;-) ?
If the "mystery stakeholder" is MS, then I would assume by default that the
suggestion is has not been made in good faith. I recall the CEO of a company
I once worked for remarking that when MS shows up at a standards forum you're
a fool if you think that they are there for any other reason than to throw a
spanner in the works.
The fact that the suggestion is completely insane and actively harmful to the
consistency (ie 'standardness') of SPF deployment supports this suspicion.
Face it, if MS made this proposal then it means only one thing - they are
looking for a fight. Appeasement only surves their purposes.
Never let it be said that I am not fair - so if I am wrong, let the mystery
stakeholder come forward and provide some credible and non-harmful use-cases
for the XML proposal.
I can see no legitimate reason for secrecy here. Anyone who wishes for secrecy
deserves to be ignored or at least treated with suspicion.
- Dan
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡