In <000001c4a7fe$c34ef540$6c62fea9(_at_)ibmrkydk2ufvdd> "John Glube"
<jbglube(_at_)sympatico(_dot_)ca> writes:
From: wayne Sent: October 1, 2004 4:55 PM
||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?
Meng spoke for the SPF community when he posted:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0782.html
which has been picked up elsewhere, such as:
http://www.pointnclickinc.com/articles09272004mengcomment.htm
As far as where Meng has said that ne continues to support the PRA, as
I said on:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0846.html
Meng said that he wants to see the PRA, along with other scopes, go
forward on the public #spf IRC channel.
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.
Right, no SPF-classic, but Unified-SPF with the PRA, but no change in
the license and no other scope that covers the 2822.From: identity.
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.
Mark did not say that, and Mark has said that he doesn't want to see
SPFv1 (SPF-classic) standardized. Mark may have changed his mind
since he made that statement, but if so, I haven't see it.
If I am then I am certain
either Mark or Meng will correct matters for the record.
I hope you are right. It has been a week since I asked Meng to post
something here about his intentions of moving forward with the PRA.
-wayne