Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 2:11:27 AM, Julian says:
JM> SPF classic has always been developed in an open process, so it's
JM> only natural that at least some of its contributors find it hard to see
JM> painful amounts of horse-trading going on and do nothing, at your
JM> instruction.
Quite..... very good point.
(and you just reminded me I meant open standard not open source in my
post just now <g>)
JM> Microsoft now has a great chance of getting away with effectively (albeit
JM> not legally) claiming the Sender-ID proposal as their own (see the press
JM> coverage, "Sender-ID" is mostly quoted as being solely MS's invention) and
JM> even hijacking the existing v=spf1 records for their own weird
JM> interpretation of checking "Return-Path:" headers or whatever.
Yep!
JM> People don't like being baited and appeased forever. At least I don't.
I don't either but then as I haven't invested a mass of direct contribution
the final outcome looks a lot closer.
--
Shane