Re: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1

Please, please please,

Just wait a little bit longer with this forking business. I myself am
not very fond of how things seem to be going, but as usual things might
not turn out as they seem to turn out. For now, spfv1 is still spfv1,
and it is still being deployed all over the planet. There's no need to
fork of right now. Let's fork as soon as spfv2 is actually there, and we
now what we are forking from.

Forking now would be a mistake, it only confuses and increases the
chances of spfv2 (or spf-id) of actually becoming really ugly.


Koen

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 09:06:32PM +0200, 
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.
>
> > Who's with me?
> I'm with you.
--
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

pgptTn7omrWPJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature