----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Phillips" <nwp(_at_)nz(_dot_)lemon-computing(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] will PRA checking take off anyway?
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 09:45:30AM +0200, jpinkerton wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Meng Weng Wong" <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 6:25 PM
Subject: [spf-discuss] will PRA checking take off anyway?
Excellent, I think we are beginning to agree on exactly
where we disagree.
Not really *excellent* at all ! It has taken far too long for you to
come
out and declare what your position is. By delaying like this you have
cost
spf development and the community a considerable amount of frustrating,
wasted time, speculating on what is *really* going on between you and
M$.
While you prevaricate and try to please everyone, some of the spf
developers
lose heart - or is that part of the M$ plan - divide and conquer?
If you *really* have the best interests of spf at heart you will set
aside a
couple of hours and write up a complete summary of what has transpired
in
the communications between you and M$ which you allude to.
Oh for goodness' sake. There seem to be far too many people around here
recently seeing reds under every bed. I suggest those of you who have any
doubt about Meng's intentions in this go back and read the very early
messages from this list. And then consider how much *work* Meng has put in
to SPF, and how it has developed.
And if you're still not convinced, ask Meng whether he has IRC logs from
the moment he first decided to "so something about it" onward.
To save you the bother, the executive summary: he's not in this for MS'
sake.
Maybe Meng wasn't in this for M$'s sake at the beginning, but the folks then
"gave away the store" (as Seth put it) , and things have changed
considerably. Meng has stated that he is "playing politics" and that is
*very* bad news for spf.
Then screw your heads on right and try being practical and pragmatic;
point your paranoia in a rather more useful direction. We all know
what MS' motivation is, and we all know what they like to do to
standards. Do you really think that they're likely to drop their
precious PRA when they can just go ahead and use it with SPF records
anyway? Don't shoot Meng, he's just the messenger. Rather, proceed to
thank your lucky stars that it's not *you* stuck in the middle of this
working your nuts off and getting bashed by your own team.
Not true - Meng is *not* "just the mesenger". Meng is actively promoting
the incorporation of things which are technically flawed - just for the
benefit of M$.
Now, a practical question: why not keep spf1 PRA- and scope-free, turn
spf2
into spf1 with scopes as Meng has been suggesting, and make spf3 be the
vague thing that is still to be discussed and worked on?
No reason at all that I know of - I've been suggesting something similar for
a while now. Only one proviso - any incorporation of any function has to be
equally available to all users - not just M$. The intention is to be open
source, isn't it?
At least that gives MS the opportunity to do PRA without breaking
anything.
Well - M$ won't be breaking anything but the standards - nothing new there.
;-)
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492