On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:13:08 -0400, Meng Weng Wong
<mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 08:50:47AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
The folks who asked me, back in January, to work with
Microsoft to produce a single standard, would have to ask me
to stop.
Instead they have been emailing me directly saying "please
keep going". They won't say it here, because we seem to
have turned this mailing list into a cross between a
kangaroo court and a witchhunt, but it's what I'm hearing.
I think it is important to keep the domain owners in mind
--- those millions of folks who will have to actually do the
dirty work of publishing the records. Keeping things as
simple as possible for them is, in my view, what will make
all this a success --- not fighting over details that they
will ultimately find irrelevant.
Meng,
I think you are trying to serve two masters here and the outcome is
increasingly problematical. Setting aside the MS bashing and the
infighting, either this list and it's participants are meaningful in
pushing forward SPF* or they are not.
If the folks in the backroom are more important to you then tell the
folks on the list to take a hike. If not then bring the full
discussions into the open.
In the past I have posted my preference that a single unified solution
is preferred. Under the circumstances of MARID collapsing and the
stances of various parties, I now think that moving forward with SPF1
in the manner previously and publicly stated is the way to go. Trying
to add back in PRA to the spec is a mistake from both a technical and
political standpoint. It essentially brings us back towards the
impasse that we saw in MARID. Even considering John Glubes reasoned
response (against) to my position that PRA should be included in SPF2,
I still maintain that is a more appropriate approach.
Speaking as one of those who actually does the dirty work of
publishing the records for a large well known set of domains I can
tell you that at this point the uncertainty hurts successful
implementation more than a split between MS and the opensource/anti MS
folks with regard to SPF1. The publishing part is actually much easier
than getting large numbers of people to implement the inbound
checking. Even though I publish I get no protection from joe jobs (for
example) unless people are checking the records I publish.
My company will publish what MS requires for inbound to Hotmail/MSN
just as we publish SPF1 records specifically because of AOLs
requirements for being on their whitelist. When Yahoo comes back and
says "you must do DomainKeys" then we will do DomainKeys. This has
little to do with coming up with an open and fair set of standards for
everyone to use.
This is one of the reasons I am posting from a personal account rather
than my corporate one. I believe that these issues are too core to the
functioning of the internet to let the interests of one or a few
companies override the larger interests of the public interest/good.
The positions I take are my own and do not run counter to the
interests of my employer per se. However, in this forum I do not speak
for my company unless I post from my corporate account.
The only conclusion I can come to as to why there would be a push for
PRA to be retrofitted into SPF1 is to level the playing field for PRA
compared to those who support SPF classic. One need only look at the
numbers of published records for SPF1 vs SPF2.0/PRA. I'm agnostic on
this issue politically other than to note that this further delays
people from implementing the checking that helps protect the domains I
am responsible for. As I have previously expressed, I have
reservations technically as well.
Without casting doubts on your integrity, I would appreciate you
clarifying whose interests you represent and to do so openly rather
than coyly trying to get the list participants to accept a direction
and agenda (set by the unnamed) that there is so clearly opposition
to.
Mike