-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Dave Crocker spewed into the bitstream:
DC>On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:44:59 +0000 (GMT), csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com wrote:
DC>> PHB has made what seems to me to be an excellent suggestion. He
DC>> suggests that the subject line of this email should be the
DC>> organizational name for what we're trying to form. In spite of the
DC>> fact that he and I have had significant differences I happen to
DC>> agree with this strategy. I invite comments and discussion?
DC>
DC>
DC>1. gaining public acceptance as a 'standards' group requires some
DC>track record. the usual model for a group like this is that it works
DC>as an adjunct to formal standards efforts.
Want a track record? Count the SPF implementations. SPF is today,
essentially, a defacto standard.
DC>2. this is an spf effort. characterizing it as something larger --
DC>such as "accountability messaging" will merely cause it to overlap
DC>with other, independent efforts, thereby creating confusion.
Uhm... count the implementations again and ask yourself one question?
How well are the other guys doing? Then we should examine how to
incorporate the best ideas from the other working implementations and
see if, how,and when we might incorporate the best parts of their
solutions into our standard. Be as inclusive as we can but use the power
of our installed base to make it clear that where we are happened
because what we have to offer works...
- --
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com, head geek
http://moongroup.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBlOY7v6Gjsf2pQ0oRAqVzAKCdnlt3wttJHbPdau8DQm+78vtM7QCfR5Sf
gH0iu51saP58ezLi++ym+yw=
=QF2s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----