Yo Moomoo.
Did you expect anything less? <grin>
Lets face it. You (SPF) guys were fighting an uphill battle anyway. I could
be wrong, but do the math (research):
Of all of the veteran IETF cogs with more than atleast 8-10
years involvement, most, if not all, were either a) antagonistic,
b) bias, or c) created their own false stats and fud in regards to
SPF.
SPF did not get any IETF attention until AOL announced support which got
more vendors (like us) involved, and not to be out done, Microsoft got
involved and this is was when the fast-track MARID WG was stated.
And immediately the spf-bias WG chairs began to refocus and change and alter
the basic SPF working technology with convoluted and conflicting ideas that
were obvious not going to get consensus from both camps. So what happen?
Show that consensus an not be reached, close MARID and then proceed to
fast-track SID/PRA/SUBMITTER, hoping that SPF (Wayne) would not be able to
keep up with its own I-D drafts. But fortunately, Wayne did keep up and
kept SPF alive in IETF. In all honestly, these IETF guys didn't know what
to do. So they put them out both as "experimental" to start a cock-fight to
see which one wins thinking that ultimately the Microsoft juggernaut would
prevail After all, who is this SPF council compared to Microsoft?
But I guess you and Meng got caught up with all the "Microsoft" attention
that it blind sided you guys.
And look you now? Asking for an appeal a proposed technology that you
yourself helped promote?
Well, I guess I am happy to see that someone finally woke up and is now
finally trying to correct the situation. I am not sure I am all that happy
that it had to come to an appeal because as I said, these guys didn't like
SPF to begin with, so who knows what can happen now. I hope I am wrong
about the IETF and that common sense prevails. But then again, I always
felt common sense would prevail during MARID. Unfortunately, truth be
told, these guys had a direct or indirect bias for SPF. So I find it hard
to beat that. I hope I am wrong.
My only suggestion now is to not worry about it. What was done was done. It
is time to move on. Creating a SPF professional presence and building
confidence in the industry is #1 one now. Being preparing for the future as
if SENDERID/PRA never existed. It should have no bearing on SPF future.
However, if SID/PRA is a source of false positives for SPF, then it has be
documented. That's all you can do.
But its time to move on.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Mehnle" <julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Cat Fight! SPF Claws Sender-ID
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Scott Kitterman wrote:
http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/spam_aabeeighag_ef/
______________________________________
/ Holy cow, the appeal is sure causing \
\ quite a stir... /
--------------------------------------
\ ^__^
\ (OO)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
Not a bad article, anyway.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDGfRNwL7PKlBZWjsRAuQlAJ9VmYUC9OoFEwLe9RYK8ata2qc0+QCfXBMc
Gg2cZfKhgxguJpdNrv0rJCI=
=WJzb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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
-------
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