Meng Weng Wong wrote:
If the above text refers to my message of
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0192.html
Yes, but not only this message, you generally try to adopt new
ideas (domainkeys, acreditation, caller-id, AGUPI, sender-id).
That's my impression, you have visions for SPF which go _far_
beyond v=spf1. And some of your ideas were incompatible with
v=spf1.
For the record I think a:1.2.3.4 is a terrible idea, I think
support for "prt" is a terrible idea, and "ipv4" should be
considered an unknown mechanism or a syntax error, depending
on the severity of your syntax checking.
That's good. And then my guess was wrong. My impression was
that you'd want to do as much as possible with existing sender
policies, including interpretations as sender-id or some error
correction by interpreters in cases like a:1.2.3.4.
It is natural for feelings to be hurt when advice is not
taken, but to respond with "what an idiot" is perhaps a bit
of an overreaction.
I've never said this, and I've never thought this. Okay, it's
no secret that we were not exactly on the same side in the case
of (ab)using v=spf1 policies for sender-id. From my POV that's
the only serious difference we have.
Do I have to apologize for something which I never said, meant,
thought, or implied ? Actually that was a discussion with
Wayne, where _he_ said that _his_ ideas were ignored. I tried
to explain why it's very difficult to edit a draft in this way,
and why some ideas didn't make it, or were apparently ignored.
Bye, Frank