RE: Re: When did we lose control?

Vivien,

On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 14:00, Vivien M. wrote:

I understand fully well that you have a hatred for Microsoft, but that
particular point shows your deliberate ignorance: if you had actually been
suffering with Windows for the past decade like many of us, you'd realize
that the newer releases are not worse, but far better in pretty much every
aspect.


Yes, I was raised properly as a child and taught to hate what is evil. 
That being said you are incorrect.  I am in absolutely no way ignorant
as regards this particular issue.  I assure you that I have suffered,
and continue to suffer no matter what my focus of work has been.  The
last 5 years I spent supporting an environment comprised of DOS 6.22,
OS/2 NT 3.51, NT 4, 5/2k, and XP.  Now toss a legacy section of the
network running LANTASTIC and further complicate things with proprietary
market related protocols and a couple banks of Lucent 9600 modems
sitting on Frame Relay circuits.  I had more fun when Microsoft removed
the NETBEUI protocol by default when XP rolled around.

I wager I know a great deal of the discomfort of simply attempting to
get differing windows versions to behave correctly.  In addition to this
I managed all of the new equipment which I had the fortune of being able
to select and deploy which features various x86 dual and quad intel xeon
servers, and even an Alpha 21164 (which I had running NT for a while
when I originally got it off ebay), and of course a healthy deployment
of various 'in house' assembled AMD machines running varying RAID
configurations throughout.  I dare say I owe Andrew Tridgell and the
Samba team a round or two of drinks because Samba enabled me to bring
stability to that network in a way I never thought possible.

Maybe I'm on the wrong mailing list, but I thought this mailing list was
supposed to be about anti-email-forgery technology, not about factually
incorrect opinionated rants about software that has absolutely nothing to do
with anti-forgery technology.

What your little anti-MS crusade is doing is telling people in Redmond that
hey, it's worthless making (or just contemplating) any sacrifices for the
sake of a common standard because those communistic open source zealots
backing SPF aren't willing to listen to anything or talk about anything.
Then in the PR game (or worse, if government regulatory agencies were to get
involved, in these agencies' eyes), THEY look like the cooperative good guys
while you (and anyone you drag into this crusade of yours) look like the one
prioritizing ideology over pragmatic achievement, even though they are
actually equally, if not more so, guilty of it. MS has gazillion of
well-paid spin professionals whose job is to make open source and its
partisans look bad, so if you want SPF to succeed, don't make their job
easier by feeding them quality soundbites.


Don't you understand?  I'm _TRYING_ to tell them to Fuck off here, you
aren't making it easy.  I actually WANT them to go away, because they
have NOTHING to offer us.  All they have done is hinder development,
waste time, create divisions, and void us of any one central direction.

I would LOVE to have that in print.  "Microsoft gets told to shove their
money and stupid ideas where the sun doesn't shine by group that would
rather operate unpaid and actually accomplish something".

You make a fine point Vivien I won't deny it, there needs to be a
consensus made as to where to go, with what motive, and with whom.  This
is the underlying goal behind my antics.

I'll state here and now.  I am not going to be associated in any way
with Microsoft what-so-ever.  I am going to continue along with the
existing original Meng/Mark SPF Draft until some consensus is reached
that doesn't involve any association what so ever with Microsoft.  

SenderID is supposed to be dead/in need of review.  You watch, as they
have already stated, they will push ahead with it anyway.  This single
action by its self should provide everyone here with enough reason to
boycott working with them.

Anyone else who is interested in actually doing some work and having
discussion actually based in this little place called reality is welcome
to voice their affiliation here or to me off-list.  Hell I'll even work
together with Wayne if it means something gets done that is right.

SPFv1 merely needs a couple of tweaks and a solution other than SRS to
the forwarding problem.  I will happily create a separate mailinglist,
and provide whatever resources are necessary to facilitate a working
group to this end.

Cheers,

James

-- 
James Couzens,
Programmer
                        ^                            ( ( (      
      ((__))         __\|/__        __|+|__        '. ___ .'    
       (00)           (o o)          (0~0)        '  (> <) '    
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF

-------
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

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part