Nick,
For the benefit of those on this list who did not live thru the "cold war",
or have buried their heads and minds so deep in code that they do not know
what the term "reds" means, you may want to define the term.
Sorry, couldn't resist some levity . . .
Bruce Barnes
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Nick
Phillips
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 03:05
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
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.
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.
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?
At least that gives MS the opportunity to do PRA without breaking anything.
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp(_at_)nz(_dot_)lemon-computing(_dot_)com
You have been selected for a secret mission.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com