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.
Basically, this agreement is unacceptable to the vast majority of us
"hanger-ons" which provide the programming, evangelism, marketing, and
registration support that SPF currently enjoys.
James wrote:
I can't believe that MS publishing SPF1 records was not a stipulation of
this "merger" agreement.
I'll be a bit more direct: If this stipulation was not part of the merger
agreement, it was naive and unfortunate.
Either a new agreement needs to be negotiated, or we should simply proceed on
the assumption that this whole agreement is just our way of getting Microsoft
to endorse SPF1 for marketing reasons, and that we plan to dump the agreement
with Microsoft when it no longer provides us with marketing benefits.
wayne wrote:
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.
So now we know who is responsible, we can lynch 'em, right? :)
Michael R. Brumm