-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Barnes wrote:
| Thanks for your defense of not reading the entire minutes, James.
|
| To clarify the first poster's response to my comment: ie: "So I take
it you
| did *NOT* read the minutes of the last meeting"
|
| No, I do not regularly read the minutes of the meetings, but the
| SFP.POBOX.COM, website CLEARLY states, in the upper right-hand corner
of the
| page:
|
| "SMTP + SPF
| Sender Policy Framework
| an essential part of Sender ID"
|
| THAT'S the sellout I am referring to, and it clearly carries forward
in much
| of the content that Ming posts to the SPF discussion group.
|
| To me, that's extremely offensive. SPF has nothing to do with the
SENDER ID
| protocal being promoted by Microsuck and others. It is a STAND ALONE TOOL
| that should NOT be associated with any other anti-spam mechanism.
|
| SPF should immediately STOP referring to itself with SENDER ID in all ways
| and ignore Microsoft. All the cooperation with Microsoft is doing is
| slowing the entire process down and, potentially, relegating SPF to
the bit
| bucket.
|
| Let's stop worrying about what everyone else thinks and get SPF up and
| running as an accepted protocal.
Which is exactly what the majority of the council thinks to so you are
not alone. :-)
- --
Chuck Mead <csm(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com>
Instructor II (and resident Postfix bigot), GLS
Disclaimer: "It's Thursday and my name is Locutus of B0rk!"
Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCIJWrZfy0juH51WsRAh2iAJ9BTVP4h+7KVQFWntWdOMeLxU48VACbBoyI
S8ujJC5rikN3tuwq9KiuC48=
=Xqb6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----