In <D6BD5E1F-1400-11D9-B638-000393A56BB6(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> Mark Lentczner
<markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> writes:
2) I thought my post was asking for input, and indeed many people
responded with some. And, I read the response as overwhelmingly in
favor of putting forth Classic SPF for experimental status.
Does that mean that you (and Meng?) will be putting forth SPFv1
drafts?
4) I'm not sure where you get:
"Both Mark and Meng have *explicitly* said that they don't
want to standardize SPFv1."
and
"...Mark has said that he doesn't want to see SPFv1
(SPF-classic) standardized."
You deleted the rest of the paragraph which said "Mark may have
changed his mind since he made that statement, but if so, I haven't
see it."
Perhaps this was in the context of Sender ID drafts, and I don't think
such statements apply now. (I'd be happy to explain my logic then,
and why it doesn't apply now, but really this is for another thread.)
Yes, the last statement I've seen from you about standardizing SPFv1
was back when the SenderID drafts were still active. I'm glad to see
that you have changed your mind.
-wayne