Julian,
I agree with your concerns regarding some of the other email list's
members. Make sure as you judiciously edit the appeal, you don't
eliminate anything that might leave a gap to further any such
criticism. As Wayne noted, the appeal is long, but is also very well
thought out and thus well formed.
In any case, please add my name and company to the voices who support
the appeal you have created in our common best interests. I thank
you for your work.
Alan Maitland - The Commerce Company
Best,
Alan Maitland
WebMaster(_at_)Commerco(_dot_)Com
The Commerce Company - Making Commerce Simple(sm)
http://WWW.Commerco.Com/
At 04:54 PM 8/23/2005, Julian Mehnle wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Shewmaker wrote:
> That is, would it help to also quickly ask for and put together a list
> of people who support his appeal explicitly?
> [...]
> However, if both the general consensus as well as Julian's opinion is
> that this would be a good idea, I would suggest holding off on the
> appeal's "send" button for a few days so as to be able to gather
> signatures.
I think the importance of sending the appeal off ASAP (before Friday at
any cost) outweighs the benefit of having several supporting signatures.
If we can collect a few supporting signatures by 20:00 UTC today, I'll
include them.
What's even more important is that we all watch the "technical community"
lists (at least IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> and MARID
<ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>) for
discussion of the appeal over the next few weeks, and are prepared to
refute any bogus arguments that are brought up. We should expect Doug
Otis and other SPF haters or Sender-ID lovers to try to rip the appeal to
shreds.