In <1086552387(_dot_)13621(_dot_)572(_dot_)camel(_at_)code3> James Couzens
<jcouzens(_at_)6o4(_dot_)ca> writes:
Working with Meng hardly qualifies as "working with the
open-source/Internet community" as no single individual is qualified or
capable for representing all of the desires and feelings of said
community.
Yes, I understand that. This is something you will need to explain to
MS (and maybe Meng).
It wasn't. Didn't you get the memo?
Let me re-state what I said since you seem to have confused its intended
meaning. Perhaps through repetition its true hidden meaning will be
yielded:
I can't believe that MS publishing SPF1 records was not a stipulation of
this "merger" agreement.
Ok James. There were four "SPF people" at the dinner when the merger
was unwrapped and explained. Greg and I have both given you the same
answer. Mark Lentczner doesn't post here very much any more, but
maybe Meng will reply making it 3 out of 4.
Again, MS is blameless for not publishing SPFv1 records. They have
done everything they have committed to as part of the SPF/C-ID merger.
I order to uphold our end of the bargain, we all need to add XML
support to our SPF implementations, and start using the "caller-iD"
algorithm for obtaining the "responsible domain" from the headers.
-wayne