On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 01:48:13AM -0500,
wayne <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> wrote
a message of 124 lines which said:
Secondly, I'm not sure what to do about the name "SPF". While my
documents are *far* more similar to earlier SPF drafts in
functionality (in particular, spf-draft-200406), SPF is whatever
Meng and Mark say it is. If they say SPF uses XML, then SPF uses
XML.
At the present time, your draft and Mark's are quite similar in
practice: an implementation can comply with both and most (all?) SPF
records comply with both. That's good, it means the two drafts are two
different ways to the same goal, standardizing SPF classic.
As soon as you change the name, I strongly fear that it means a fork:
instead of two competing standards, SPF and Microsoft-ID, we will have
three. This is the last thing we want.