From: "wayne" <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net>
And immediately the spf-bias WG chairs began to [...]
By "spf-bias", do you mean that the MARID WG chairs had a pro-SPF
bias, or an anti-SPF bias?
The rest of your post makes it sound like you think they had an
anti-SPF bias, but I actually think they were both pro-SPF and a
pro-PRA. (And they didn't find these two to be in deep conflict.)
I guess that is why MARID went smoothly, quick resolution and closure?
I should of been more clear. In my opinion, they revealed a prejudice and
influenced by the strongest computer software company in the world and by
other influential members of the IETF community. i.e. Dave Crocker and a few
others who uncategorically showed a negative bias, prejudice, pre-judging of
SPF.
CSV should not have been in MARID. It was completed out of scope. PRA should
not had been introduced. It was completely out of scope compared to SPF and
CALLERID.
MARID started with SPF and its XML-based clone CALLERID. The work was
mainly picking between the two.
You had a working technology where now the attempt was to "take it apart"
and put it back together again using all kinds of different stuff, and
during this process, you had the SPF community versus the rest of the world
who wanted to thier 'ideas' used.
These are my assessment as an 100% active participant as a VENDOR looking at
everything. It was not hard to see who lean which way.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.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