Wayne wrote June 10, 2005:
|> Wayne wrote on June 8:
|>
|> <snip>
|>
|> |> * Please read the concerns raised by the head of anti-abuse
|> |> at Outblaze on Circle ID and the related references.
|> |> http://www.circleid.com/article/1039_0_1_0_C/
|> |
|> |I have posted that article to this list before.
|> |
|> |I have a lot of respect for Suresh, but on the subject of
|> |SPF, he has shown a great deal of ignorance about how it
|> |works. Granted, this was a rant he made after requesting
|> |to be placed on the T-FWL, so as a email forwarder, he may
|> |not have been happy about having to change.
|>
|> Hmm ... an attack on the integrity of an individual held in
|> high esteem within the anti-abuse community based on ...
|> speculation.
|>
|> The speculation?
|>
|> That the article in issue and the stance taken against SPF
|> was written in response to a refusal by the operator of
|> T-FWL to have a specific forwarding service placed on this
|> service.
|
|Uh, who said *ANYTHING* about Suresh's request being
|refused? Since the T-FWL is publicly available, this is
|something you could have easily checked before you posted
|such a claim.
|
|His request just came with a long rant that made several
|claims about SPF that were clearly bogus. This isn't
|speculation.
<snip>
I appreciate your clarifying the meaning of what you wrote,
however it still does not change the underlying basis of my
objection.
The issue is not what he may have written to you, how you
characterize it, or whether the request to be entered in the
T-FWL was refused or accepted.
The problem is that you took what he wrote to you and used
this to characterize his article as a rant and then
speculated that:
|Granted, this was a rant he made after requesting to be
|placed on the T-FWL, so as a email forwarder, he may not
|have been happy about having to change.
This statement improperly impugned someone you claim to
respect.
Why? Because your suggestion as to the author's motivations
had nothing to do with the stated reasons by the author for
writing the piece, Outblaze deciding to remove its SPF
records and the author's objections to SPF.
You may not agree with the conclusions which I have drawn
from both articles. However, don't attack conclusions that
you disagree with by speculating about the author's
motivations, when he clearly states his reasons in the
article.
In my books, this is a strange way of telling people that
you respect the author.
Now let me make two observations:
* The attack you made may be acceptable among engineers,
software programmers and technologists. However, in my view,
it does nothing to improve the standing of SPF in the
broader online community.
Keep in mind the old adage, "honey attracts more flies than
vinegar."
* I reiterate my position that to avoid a collision between
the presumptions behind the SPFv1 protocol and the need for
email delivery, the SPF council should take heed to the
suggestions being made to revise the protocol, which I have
referenced in this thread.
Go ahead folks and bang away, but after you have done so,
take some time to reflect.
John