Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1

Amazing, I never read this before posting my previous email. This is exactly 
what I meant, and I have been on the verge of proposing something like this 
myself. I'm not sure if I'm in on this mutiny, only because i'm waiting if 
SPFv2 is going to be as bad as it looks like it is going to be.

Anyway, it proves my point that the schism is already there, has been for a 
while.

Koen

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 05:08:16PM +0200, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed at length in the
> past, I'm highly dissatisfied by the "XML in DNS" and "XML format is
> preferred" concepts of The New SPF.  In my eyes, none of these reasons
> have been invalidated to a satisfactory level, so I have decided not to
> use and support The New SPF.  (I'm not being huffy, I'm just not going to
> bite the "XML in DNS" bullet.)
>
> I'm thinking about forking SPF into "The New SPF" and a non-XML "SPF1"
> variant, i.e. keep The Old SPF going separately and independently from The
> New SPF.
>
> Who's with me?
>
> -------
> 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
-- 

--
Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/

-------
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

pgppvAVj3QN6t.pgp
Description: PGP signature