On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 21:22 +0200, Koen Martens wrote:
John and I are very committed to this concept, and we have basically the
approval of Meng, James and Shevek, who currently run the sites I am mostly
aware of at this time. What we now need is for the community to recognize
the authority of this effort in regard to communicating to the outside
world.
One very important note: we want objectivity. This unfortunately means
neither of the players in the libspf/libspf2 debacle can have direct
influence on the sites content. This does not mean I want to dismiss
anyone's contribution to this effort, not at all. In fact, we really really
need the input and contributions of the libspf/libspf2 guys. All we are
asking, for the sake of moving forward, is that those guys hand over direct
control of the site to John and me.
I disagree here. If anything, you want both Wayne and I heavily
involved. Let me briefly mention that the heart of the James vs. Wayne
debacle is over the actions of Wayne's choice to ambiguously re-title
his library because of his desire for spotlight/notice whatever, what
every author of software wants, to have their software used.
I still think that what Wayne did was downright rude, inconsiderate,
deliberate and dishonourable, but it doesn't mean I hate his guts and
want him to die, nor does it mean that both of us can not work together.
The reason Wayne and I ended up not working together is because of his
choice to work with Shevek, who's arrogance rivals that of Gates,
Ellison and Jobs combined. Shevek blatantly lied to me about his
intentions and insulted my intelligence and undermined my efforts on
multiple occasions. libSRS was complete back in February let me remind
you. I refused to work with Shevek, but Wayne had no qualms about it
and proceeded forward.
I disagree with several of Wayne's choices and the way in which he went
about a few things, but I do find that we see eye to eye more often than
not on both the political and technical positions relating to SPF. I
would put neither of us in any position of authority, but I would
certainly work together with him and others to see that all you have
outlined in your well worded document come to fruition. This is because
we are what we are, and we have only what we have. I have my own faults
and negative personality traits just like anyone else, but we can't
really do much to change that, so we should attempt to work together as
best we can with the time and resources that we have.
The great thing about Wayne and myself is that neither of us have any
financial motives relating to the success or failure of SPF. This has
allowed our focus to remain strictly relevant to what would both be
technically suitable and physically possible given the existing Internet
infrastructure. Neither of us are prone to technical considerations
being implemented as a result of negative political or monetary
pressures being influenced over us.
SPF must be FREE
SPF must be __FIXED__
SPF must stop being touted as an ANTI-SPAM vehicle.
SPF needs a unified front. As you stated, I agree with you, and I'll
work with you and anyone else willing to be upfront about their
intentions (yes financial motivation isn't ALL bad). What I won't
tolerate is further bad form and or behaviour stemming from a desire to
win a coding popularity contest or flagrant lying or misrepresenting the
truth.
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