Re: Dear Microsoft,

> 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.
--James Couzens <jcouzens(_at_)6o4(_dot_)ca> wrote:
> Don't you think that they would look more committed by publishing?

Microsoft CID team agreed to the merged spec.  They did NOT agree to SPF1 
as is.  This is a merger, not an MS takeover, and certainly not an SPF 
takeover.

> > 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 firmly believe MS Caller ID is NOT a joke.  I also believe SPF is not the 
final word in LMAP.  SPF1 was not the first, and will not be the last.

> I can't believe that MS publishing SPF1 records was not a stipulation of
> this "merger" agreement.

I sure can.  If you are frustrated at the new SPF/MSCID merger proposal, 
your problem is not with MS, it is with Meng Weng Wong.  But, I for one 
applaud his actions.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>