From: wayne Sent: October 1, 2004 4:55 PM
|No, both Mark and Meng are co-authors, they both have
|control over the documents. Meng has let Mark do most of
|the editing recently, but that is a relatively recent
|change.
I apologize. You are correct on this point. I re-read
Mark's post in which he stated:
|We (Meng and I), as authors of drafts that were part of the
|MARID working group, have been asked to "put forward their
|documents as non-working group submissions for Experimental
|RFC status".
<snip>
||To Mark's great credit he has done the right thing and
||asked the SPF community for direction.
|And the result of that has been? Mark's single post in the
|last month and a half didn't say he was asking for our
|input. He did ask a few rhetorical questions. Mark wants
|to greatly cut down the SPF spec. Meng wants to create
|Unified-SPF. MS wants just the PRA. Go back and read
|Mark's post.
I did and follows is the relevant portions of Mark's post:
|At the core I see there are set of ideas, that one might
|label "SPF Classic" that seem to endure. But in active
|discussion and development I see many different splinters
|of this: Meng's call for a new form of Unified SPF, various
|combinations with and with out CSV, my own thoughts toward
|a stripped down SPF, and even Microsoft's call for
|submitting the dual-identity version of Sender ID. Alas,
|these changes don't seem to me to be tweaks of the last ten
|percent -- they are often wholesale changes in approach.
|
|If I'm to write up what should be put forth for
|experimental status, then we need to have some cohesion on
|what it is that we agree on for a core. The only thing I
|see is the SPF Classic ("v=spf1") that is deployed in
|thousands of domains and implemented. Do we have enough
|agreement to promote that? If we should be promoting
|something else, can we show enough rallying around some
|other approach to claim that it is meaningful to document
|it now so experimentation with interoperability can begin?
|- Mark
|Mark Lentczner
|http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
|markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com
<snip>
||Again, Meng has already spoken for the SPF community and
||continues to support the PRA.
Can you provide a url to a statement on the public record
by Meng in which he has specifically stated that the SPF
community continues to support PRA?
I am not aware of such a specific statement, although I am
aware of statements made by Meng in which he stated his
objective was to move ahead with Unified SPF. Of course,
what is included or not included in Unified SPF remains
open.
I am also aware that Meng has stated to this list that he
intends to continue to work with MS, which is his choice as
an individual.
But the stance of the SPF community as a whole is a
separate matter.
In particular my understanding of Mark's post was that if
the consensus of the SPF community was to support SPF
classic as a proposal for an RFC Experimental Standard that
means the HELO and MAIL FROM scopes and nothing else.
Of course, I could be mistaken in my understanding. Hey, it
would not be the first time. If I am then I am certain
either Mark or Meng will correct matters for the record.
John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
For The Record, Will Microsoft Own Email?
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/wme.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.767 / Virus Database: 514 - Release Date: 21/09/2004