On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 12:11, wayne wrote:
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.
Don't you think that they would look more committed by publishing?
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".
As previously stated, I believe the proof to be in the pudding. I would
like to see Microsoft publish SPF1 records. CallerID is a joke and we
all know it. The very reason they are working with us because they know
it too.
I can't believe that MS publishing SPF1 records was not a stipulation of
this "merger" agreement.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBD3BF855
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part