Stuart D. Gathman [stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com] wrote:
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,
Well, in my terms that *would be* a fork. Not in the "code base fork"
sense, but in the "conceptual fork" sense.
but unlike a fork, we aren't aiming to replace SPF 2.
True, but I guess SPFv2 is aiming to replace SPFv1, and as long as SPFv2
mandates receivers to be able to parse XML, this isn't something I'm going
to support.