Re: Dear Microsoft,

> > On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 03:55, Karl Prince wrote:
> > > published to avoid confusion, and that the XML version has
> > > precedent.
> James Couzens wrote:
> > Thats disgusting.  I think I read that information with too much good
> > faith.  If thats true, again, thats a disgusting stipulation.  Can you
> > confirm this via posting a reference?  Either way I'm off in search of
> > it, its appalling, and I find it hard to believe our SPF guys at the
> > meeting would have capitulated to such a thing!

The reason was, this is to be a merger, not a takeover.  SPF and CID 
parsers will all need to read and understand both formats, in order to give 
the domain owners the freedom of choice.
If it's any "consolation" I think MS gave up more than we did, at the 
table.  They also agreed to parse SPF txt records, and they agreed to 
supplement their meager instruction set (pretty much ip4: and mx:) to 
include ALL of SPF's mechanisms.  Think about that for a minute, about how 
many mechanisms SPF has and how big of a step it is to go from 2 to all in 
like nothing flat.  That is a full-on feature set change, not just a 
language/syntax change.
I can discuss the technical details of the merger plan, but the details are 
already published by Meng in the New SPF threads.  The technical details 
are not even the most important part, in my opinion, for reasons I posted 
about earlier this morning.
I understand you are upset, disgusted, feel betrayed, etc.  Sorry about 
that.  Hopefully it won't hinder you from participating in the SPF 
community for long.  For now about all I can offer is, "Trust Meng, he 
knows what he is getting into."
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>