So, like, the other day "Miquel van Smoorenburg" mumbled:
> In article <E1Am0BM-0004vK-Um@???>, <exim@???> wrote:
> >
> >Just to be clear here, SPF was initially a motion independent
> >of AOL. AOL has embraced the effort as they see the benefit.
>
> I think it's a bit of a shame. I've read the SPF RFC and the DMP
> RFC and the latter seems to be much more sound.
I confess to having not read the DMP RFC, so I won't comment on it.
> At least it's
> been written by someone who knows [how] to write an RFC.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk-dmp-01.txt
That may be a fair criticism. However, there are folks in the
SPF camp that can help clear up that issue relatively quickly.
The draft is becoming more refined, and it is tending towards
real RFC-dom. Just to drop names, ESR is behind SPF and is
actively working towards solidfying it. There are other IETF
members lurking on the SPF sidelines.
Remember, half the known RFCs were codifications of existing
or mostly-existing "best" practicies in an effort to come to
a consensus as to "how things SHOULD work."
If you have something you feel you could add to the SPF effort
to make it better, I would encourage you to join[1] the list and
offer advice!
jdl
[1] You may already be there. I grepped my logs but couldn't
find your name.
