In <1086548068(_dot_)16256(_dot_)530(_dot_)camel(_at_)code3> James Couzens
<jcouzens(_at_)6o4(_dot_)ca> writes:
Dear Microsoft,
Your "merger" with us is a big fat joke. Lets have a look at some of
your domains:
[list of doimains w/o SPF records deleted]
Oh wow, not a single one publishing any SPF records. Wow, Microsoft you
are so committed (if you didn't pick up on that, I was being
sarcastic).
James:
As much as I dislike the situation, MicroSoft is in 100% compliance
with the merger worked out between Meng (the leader of the SPF
community) and MicroSoft.
The merger calls for:
1) All systems to understand *both* XML and SPF records. Since MS has
not published any systems, they are compliant.
2) Domain owners can publish either, but the XML version overrides the
SPF version. It is recommended that if your domain uses XML, you
should not publish SPF records because that causes confusion. Since
MS has chosen the XML, they are compliant.
MicroSoft has lived up to the bargain that they made with the Meng
(and, as Jim Lyon of MS says "his hanger ons").
Please do not direct your anger at MicroSoft. They are blameless in
this situation.
What the SPF community has gained from this merger is a commitment
from MicroSoft to support the legacy SPF format (as Jim Lyon says
"don't shoot the pioneers in the back") and an extention to the XML
format to support all the stuff that can be done with SPF. This
includes macro variables, the exists: mechanism and the exp= modifier.
The SPF community also gains by having another major MUA/MTA/DNS/ISP
provider backing the "new SPF".
-wayne