On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 list+spf-discuss(_at_)doeblitz(_dot_)net wrote:
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.
IT's sad, but seems to be necessary.
There's no need to call it a fork. SPF 1 is for 2821, SPF 2 is for 2822.
We want to keep SPF 1 going independently of SPF 2, but unlike a fork,
we aren't aiming to replace SPF 2. Those who want the RFC 2822 checking
features of SPF 2 will need to implement SPF 1 as well if they want
to be able to block sender forgeries before DATA.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.