In <42707C77(_dot_)7F82(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
First off, I would like to apologize for my absence on
spf-discuss.
And the -01pre stuff is really old, the earliest announcement
was for Jan 03. So now you ask us to wait for a -01pre4, ok.
Yes, I did ask you to wait. The -01pre4 release announcement was just
sent to spf-discuss. I hope you didn't mind the 12hr wait too much.
I've no idea what happened with my input to -01pre2.
A lot of it was applied to the -01pre3 draft. Please send any
comments about what wasn't applied, or new comments to the list.
I've no
idea what Julian talks about when he mentions his input for a
-01pre1. I don't know who said what about -01pre3 elsewhere.
In fact I didn't know that a -01pre3 exists, I stumbled over
it in the IRC log.
As I mentioned in my earlier reply, the first -01preXX messages were
mentioned on the #spf IRC channel. I agree that I should have long
ago mentioned them here also, but the #spf channel has always been one
of the places that the SPF community talks.
As far as Julian's comments, like you, Julian made a bunch of comments
and suggestions to the earlier -01preXX drafts.
Anyway, all of the drafts can be found at:
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/
Tnx for info, I didn't know this URL.
It was used when I announced the spf-classic-00 draft.
it is in the same location as the 01pre2 draft that you
reviewed.
It wasn't difficult to remove one erroneous /spf from...
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf/spf_classic_libspf2/
...but I couldn't guess the new and different URL.
I apologize. I thought I had given you the corrected URL, but
apparently I didn't.
-wayne