--Julian Mehnle <lists(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> 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?
Perhaps it would be a good idea to delay the discussions about splitting up
the group into New SPF and SPF Classic for a while. Who knows, MS may not
come through on their end of the bargain, and we might all revert to SPF
Classic. Or, they might still be convinced to drop XML, which seems to be
a hot-button issue for a number of people.
There's nothing really to stop people from using SPF as is, and that is the
message I have heard Meng repeating. For now, whether we merge or not, the
next few steps are the same. So, I don't think there's a burning/urgent
need to decide on anything right yet.
If the New SPF causes a split within the group, SPF Classic will still
work... but the Classic camp will no longer have the benefit of huge
lobbying power trying to get forwarders to switch to SRS. SPF Classic
without SRS is going to be a tough sell. I won't try to discourage people
from going that route, if they really believe SPF Classic is the way to go,
but they need to realize it will be a tougher road.
In any case, there is not much to gain by going through a painful divorce
right now... let's see what happens with MS, and more importantly, with
MARID. Then if people still feel strongly about SPF Classic, they can go...
gregc
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>