wayne wrote:
None of the people who were backing the appeal have bothered
to write something for spf-announce. So much for having
"good PR".
That's a read-only list, AFAIK only you and Julian could have
done this. Meng didn't back the appeal, and nobody else ever
posted there.
I've forwarded the info to spf-deployment and syndic8. Scott
added William's appeal. You've reported all public reactions
here (John L's and Andy's articles, BTW, thanks).
It is probably too late to send something to spf-announce
anyway,
All journalists interested in IETF affairs probably watch the
general list, not spf-announce - look, Wayne, it's nobody's
fault, least of all your fault, but at the moment spf-announce
is as dead as the ASRG.
Maybe John P could revive his "SPF news" page, but as you said:
considering the appeal was filed last week. It would be old
news now.
Many old news are boring. "We" (TINW) have now expressed our
concerns in a way that can't be ignored and that's on record.
Whatever the IESG decides. "They" (Andy, DEA-dir, and others)
tried to ignore "us", claiming that it's only about the funny
"patent" or misguided technical perfectionism, but that's not
true. (Replace "not true" as you see fit)
For the IETF it's the pretty simple question whether they want
an "Industry Enforced Standards Group" (sometimes I think that
Phil would prefer this) or something related to "engineering".
Bye, Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
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