Chuck,
Thanks for clarifying this matter.
After reading Terry's post about the website not being updated with any
regularity, "Yes but, is there any talk of when the pobox website is going
to get updated and corrected (or taken offline WRT SPF) so the
misinformation does not keep coming from the site that is perceived by many
(including
media) as the authority???", it seems that we are in one of two (possibly
more) situation:
1 Short of someone to do this.
2. Don't have access to the current site and it's content.
At the risk of being deluged with additional work, I will hereby volunteer
my time to do the website updates - WITH THE INPUT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE
COUNCIL or a DESIGNATED PERSON who will be responsible for letting me know
what has to be updated.
To do this will require access to the site.
If we don't have access to the current site, then I will volunteer space on
a webserver (although my current mail software does NOT have the ability to
check SPF at this time, we are looking into several products that will.
So, to summarize my offer:
1. If the group has access to the current website to maintain that site, I
will volunteer my time to do so.
2. All content changes will be done at the direction of the MAJORITY of the
group or by a DESIGNATED MEMBER of the group. I will not make myself
available to be "in the middle" of constant disagreement about the site
content.
3. If we do not have access to the current host to update the site, I will
consider setting up a machine to do the hosting of the site.
Bruce Barnes
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Chuck
Mead
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 09:29
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] URGENT REQUEST: Change the webpage please
-----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-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
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