spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Vote of confidence/no-confidence in Meng as SPF representative

2004-10-26 15:38:13
In <20041026222013(_dot_)GJ1135(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng 
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 04:16:04PM -0500, wayne wrote:
| 
| Meng has done a very good job on many things, but if it was up to
| Meng, we would have XML in DNS and SenderID without the mfrom scope as
| a standard right now.

For the record, the "XML in DNS" thing was originally
Microsoft's idea.  I thought it was laughable, but suggested
a modifier to allow a simple SPF text record to link to a
more complex XML document to be used as an escape hatch if
we ever ran out of syntax steam.  Fortunately since then
Microsoft gave up on wanting XML, so I dropped the modifier.

Like hell "Microsoft gave up on wanting XML".  Don't you remember the
near fork on here when you sat by and did nothing?  Don't you remember
people forcing the MARID co-chairs to finally require the pro-XML
crowd to give examples of what XML was needed for and for the rest of
us to show that the SPF syntax could deal with those needs?  Don't
you remember that many others answered those questions while you
didn't say a damn word?

No, MS didn't give up on XML in DNS.  MS was forced to give it up and
you didn't do a damn thing to help.


Most of my political energy in dealing with Microsoft over
the last two months was spent trying to force mfrom scope
back into Sender ID.

"*Back into SenderID*"???  What are you smoking?  There never *was* a
mfrom scope in SenderID until the rest of us (not you) forced the
issue during the WG last call.  Yeah, I know, you once had some
delusions that there was a fallback thing in the spec that was
kind-of-sort-of like SPF-classic, but it was never there.

Yeah, this is another example of your "perfect leadership", where you
get all the credit for the results from other people's efforts when
those people don't have a clue.


So I'm not sure I agree with your assertions above.  Perhaps
I haven't been as forthcoming as possible, but [...]
                            Second, do the people on this
list really expect me to lay out my strategy for getting
what we want, at the potential expense of our opponent,
on a public mailing list which our opponent is monitoring?

Our opponents?  Who are they?  Microsoft?  Or spammers?

Spammers I don't care about, they will figure everything out
eventually anyway.  Security by obscurity doesn't work.

If you mean Microsoft, do they know you think of them as your
opponents?



-wayne