libspf2 is useless without the proper header files to define symbols used
in the code. The statement on the site "won't compile but this is the
reference version" is irritating if it is 8 months old with no motion.
So, what libspfX should I use?
It would be nice if the documentation at spf.pobox.org were rehashed to
bring it up to date, and it (that site) was the top-level place to go
for details about projects and their status, including whether, e.g.,
libspf2 (which they /offer/) was/is _abandoned_.
I wrote a scathing thing that said that until Microsoft gets rid of their
licensing (attempts), whatever they offer for protocols should be scrupulously
ignored. If SPF is taking a hit because "something better has come along",
well, nothing from Microsoft is "better". Meng Wong should understand this
and work on the thing that he did which was good, SPF, and leave Microsoft
to fend for itself. The fact that MS can't introduce their licensable thingy
without bundling an open-sourced idea into it shows their hubris - after all,
Bill should not want to use communist (his concept of open-source) software
in something he wants to sell. Meng can't ask for royalties. He needs to
rewrite the license that says if a big fat commercial entity wants to reuse
the idea in something they license, then Meng gets 110% of any revenues
derived OR USD 100 per licensee, and that'll put an end to the fiddling.
From what I understand, SPF + SRS is a complete solution per se - and even if
it does not do everything it could it is a sufficient place to start.
Sender-ID, is not open, and MS should be told to go f**k itself and leave
real programmers alone until it learns how to behave (I wouldn't hold my
breath.)
If the structural tools behind SPF + SRS are in disarray, that is the problem.
Someone needs to take the lead in establishing an accurate "current state of
affairs" for SPF so it can get back on track.
-ecsd
=====
From: Radu Hociung (radu(_dot_)spf(_at_)ohmi(_dot_)org)
Hi...
I get the feeling that no-one is working on libspf2 anymore. It appears
the last time the source was touched was Aug 31, 2004.
The libspf2.org website has been abandoned too.
I do get the wrong impression sometimes, so if anyone is working on it,
a show of hands would be appreciated.
I would like to help the devel effort too. Effort? What effort?
Around the same time (early September 2004), the following things were
happening:
- MARID group was disbanded.
- Open source Sender-ID milter for sendmail was announced
http://sourceforge.net/projects/sid-milter/ (Looks like a one-man effort)
- Microsoft issued a Sender-ID pattent application
- Apache said they want nothing to do with it.
- Sendmail said they want some of it.
- The SPF founder also wanted some of it, so he married SPF and Sender-ID
- The technical experts here and elsewhere said it's a bad idea (more
words than that, of course)
- The adoption rate of SPF went from strong to limp over-night.
How all of these events and others relate, I don't fully understand
myself. It almost looks like the pattent issue on Sender-ID killed SPF.
It makes no sense, I know...
All in all, I think it would be awsome to put SPF back on track.
Thanks,
Radu.