From: Meng Weng Wong Sent: October 22, 2004 9:32 AM
||On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 07:06:11AM -0400, John Glube wrote:
||
|| Sometimes, in diplomacy it is better to:
||
|| * Say "no" while leaving the door open, if the other party
|| wants to say "yes" after removing the "poison pills;" and,
||
|| * Move ahead with an approach which sets up an open
|| standard that can aid in the solution without the need to
|| rely upon the tarnished chalice.
||
|
|And sometimes, if you're smart enough, you can see when
|people are doing exactly that, without having to have it
|be pointed out to you.
Meng, I don't believe we are communicating, but rather
talking past each other.
In subsequent answers to others in this and related threads
you have stated that your intent is to:
* Amend the protocol for v=spf1 with a modifier, as
requested by Rand, so that those who wish to state their
record can't be used for pra checking can do so; and,
* Move ahead with a protocol for SPF which specifically
supports both mail from and pra authentication, having
noted "your not sure folks are wrong about Sender ID,"
despite the technical concerns which have been raised
concerning PRA and any objections over the draft patent
license.
Ultimately, I am here at your pleasure, you are the founder
of the SPF community and so must respect your decision to
proceed forward in this fashion with Microsoft.
John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 12/10/2004