Re: Re: change of version string

On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 18:44, wayne wrote:

> Even in the last jabber session before IETF-60, the continued support
> for SPF-classic brought up.  I know that both you and Meng think that
> the entire SPF community will follow along and switch to the PRA and
> MARID, but I don't believe it for a second.  Your own study of the PRA
> showed that it had a much higher error rate than SPF and as tiny as
> your study was, it is the largest todate.  There simply has been
> almost no testing of the PRA and little reason to trust it.
Whilst I most certainly do NOT agree with Wayne's library naming
decision, I absolutely concur with the above paragraph.  I believe that
Wayne has made an exceptional argument here and warrants further
discussion by others.

There is just no way people are going to hop onto the PRA wagon just
because an RFC may possibly be published.  Why would I trade in my
Corvette for a Chevette?  ?

Cheers,

James

-- 
James Couzens,
Programmer
                                                     ( ( (      
      ((__))         __lib__        __SPF__        '. ___ .'    
       (00)           (o o)          (0~0)        '  (> <) '    
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---

http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features 
SPF and Sender ID.
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

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part