From: wayne Sent: October 1, 2004 5:57 PM
|Meng spoke for the SPF community when he posted:
|
|http://archives.listbox.com/spf-|discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0
782.html
|
|which has been picked up elsewhere, such as:
|
|http://www.pointnclickinc.com/articles09272004mengcomment.htm
Thanks for pointing this out. However, Mark made it quite
clear to me at least by his post that Meng's desire, which
as you have pointed out was placed on the public record,
"that the SPF community supports PRA" can't bind the group,
at least as far as Mark is concerned.
As to Mark, you write:
|... 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.
I am aware that Mark has previously said he personally does
not want SPFV1 (SPF-classic) standardized.
However, I repeat what Mark posted:
|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?
To me this means Mark is saying, my personal views are not
relevant but rather, as he puts it, "Do we have enough
agreement to promote that?" - the "that" referring to SPF
Classic.
This is why I firmly believe Mark did the right thing in
asking "what is the consensus?"
For example, in my case, I would prefer to see the SPF
community move towards and adopt the CSV position.
Having said this, I believe it is important for the SPF
community to put forward SPF classic for approval as an RFC
Experimental Standard, if for no other reason than as Anne
points out to maintain a hold on the existing records in
the wild and continue to support those who have implemented
SPF classic, while the community as a whole decides what it
wants to do next.
Similarly, if individuals want to go forward and support
the implementation of PRA by MS, that is also their choice.
But a clear distinction needs to be drawn between what an
individual does and says on his own behalf and what the SPF
community as a whole does or says.
The options on a go forward basis seem to be:
* move forward with SPF Unified (with the scopes subject to
agreement, some people willing to support PRA, others not
willing to support PRA);
* adopt and support CSV; or,
* move forward with SES.
Each of these are significant changes from SPF classic.
In the circumstances, based on what has transpired, I
believe there is a consensus of those who have posted
comments on this issue that the SPF community instruct Mark
and Meng to:
* Put forward SPF classic which means v=spf1 as the syntax,
with only scopes HELO and MAILFROM, and nothing else,
either specifically or by way of option, for approval as an
RFC Experimental Standard.
Therefore, I ask that Mark and Meng confirm their
willingness to accept these instructions on behalf of the
SPF Community and proceed forward.
If people agree, let's get moving. If others disagree with
this request, then hey as JohnP said, if there needs to be
a vote, go for it.
On the issue of PRA, Meng supports this. It seems the
majority of the community does not at least as long as MS
refuses to clarify its position on the scope of the patent
claims and the patent license.
Mark and Meng, like the rest of us are free as individuals
to advocate or support what ever position they choose, but
it must be clearly understood they do so as individuals and
not on behalf of the SPF community as a whole.
Okay, it's Friday evening and I have to chime off.:-)
Thanks,
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