HERE HERE! -- Mark !!
I'm not able to offer much but I would like to implement SPF soon and
I'd be willing to do whatever was needed.
I'm a latecomer to the game, but this much I can say: Sometimes you just
have to bite the bullet, call enough enough and follow through with
SOMETHING to make your efforts worthwhile. It isn't going to be perfect
for everybody, but the simple fact that it is THERE makes Sys Admins
like myself have hope that things are improving.
And about this quarrell - I would just like to say good job to
everybody. This is by far the most active list that I'm subscribed to
and I'm impressed about all the input that everyone has given and all
the work people are obviously putting into this.
I can't wait to have some time to implement this with my mail system.
Philip Waters
____
Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work.
Practice is when something works, but you don't know why.
Programmers combine theory and practice:
Nothing works and they don't know why.
--Unknown
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Lentczner" <markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: When did we lose control?
I didn't even think the original posting of this thread deserved a
response. I think a lot of vitriol has been posted here as well. It
is getting way out of hand.
First, some short responses:
- The way I see it, the one who writes the spec, *is* the one who sets
the standard. But only if that spec is the one that is accepted.
- Where did I get the authority to write the spec? Because I've
worked
my tail off on this project. Because I've done more than just quibble
and add my two cents to every thread on this list. Because I did a
helluva lot for SPF.
- Everything I've done leading up to draft-lentczner-spf-00 was done
completely in the open on this list. Everything. Every question,
every decision.
- Sorry, Wayne, you are way out of line: Not only were you not the
only
voice I heard from, you were hardly a voice I heard from. You didn't
"gnash your teeth" until the absolute last minute possible. And in
any
event, many people offered other opinions than the ones you have.
- Sorry all: Sometimes a spec writer has to make a judgment call and
the answer may not be popular. I said this would happen up front, so
no one should be surprised. I believe that the standard itself has to
hang together and sometimes that requires overriding one thing over
another.
- As to my supposed absence last Winter, it is grossly overrated. I
may not have been posting here much, or able to attend some of the
meetings. But, rest assured, I was pretty involved in what was
happening and reading all versions of the standard produced.
Now, some big issues:
SPF is at a crisis. This group is out of control, and not because I
wrote a draft. This group has no leadership, no direction, and almost
no practical output. This group is rapidly making itself useless.
The first major mistake is that we have no practical product. SPF as
a
spec is still full of problems: It hasn't answered the issue of
forwarders, needing SRS, or a practical way for receivers to
whitelist,
or some other solution. (Don't reply with your favorite solution --
the
fact that we are still discussing solutions shows we haven't solved
it.) The SPF spec is complex due to speculation about need, not
actual
need. While there are some implementations, there is really nothing
we
can tell someone "drop this into your MTA, set it and forget it".
There are too many caveats, and any user is going to have keep
vigilant.
The second major mistake is that we have been far too quick to abandon
our leadership. Meng is only continuing to pursue the dual-identity
Sender-ID that as recently as September was still in favor. Further,
even if you are ticked off at the IP issues, or MS "just 'cause", or
whatever, the whole point of dual-identity was to allow work on SPF's
Mail From to continue right along. Don't you all see? We won the
battle: MS didn't steam-roller Caller-ID over the industry and it is
because of our efforts. Now we can implement SPF on a level playing
field with MS's PRA. But, by rejecting Meng as leader, we have
jeopardized the whole project.
This group needs to shape up, and shape up fast. It is time to drop
the whole discussion of MS. It is time to stop arguing about who did
what when or why. It is time to stop adding features. It is time to
stop re-hashing features. Basta!
SPF needs implementations, web pages, test suites, F.A.Q.s, on-line
checkers, record wizards, documentation, press releases, seminars,
cool
graphics, and a spec writer. It is time for many people to step up to
the plate and start doing all this work that is needed, even if SPF
isn't perfect in their view. It is time for a few people to step up
and lead those efforts. It is time for us to rally behind one person
with a vision that can keep this project moving forward.
Otherwise we are all just wasting the last year's worth of work.
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com
-------
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