On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 05:29 -0500, wayne wrote:
Personally, I do not think the time is right to start working on the
next generation of SPF. There is already enough confusion in the IESG
(and elsewhere) about whether SPFv1 is obsolete because SID uses
spf2.0 records.
I find it interesting that this exact same namespace problem has come up
twice in relation to SPF. We have the "SID uses spf2.0 which is greater
than spf1, so it must be a valid and accepted successor" and we had the
"the 2 in libspf2 means alternative, not successor, damit!" fiasco.
Heh, come to think of it, libspf2 could be construed as supporting SID.
Did that ever come up?
On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 11:48 -0600, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
I remember
working with SpamAssassin and they seem to make it clear what they were
and had a clear picture being communicated to all. SPF has not. We are
making progress with all the things being done. But it has not been very
clear since before MADRID.
Has SpamAssassin ever had anyone try to co-opt them for alternative
purposes? At times, it seems like there are actual conspiratorial
actions going on to make SPF fail through naming confusion. Although,
we all know the series of letters "s", "p", "a" and "m" appearing in
that sequence on the spf.pobox.com website didn't help to form a unified
and accurate portrayal of SPF either.
--
Andy Bakun <spf(_at_)leave-it-to-grace(_dot_)com>