Re: SPF and egos

I'd really like to stick to technical analysis, but to assist that let
me say -

I'm the historian here and I will make sure Gordon and Hadmut and others
involved in the beginning are credited. I note that the origins are
mentioned by Meng on his website and would want to make sure they
continue to be (yes, perhaps with a few more bells and whistles ...)

As regards IETF - no-one involved in this wants a proprietary solution
or series of same. However no-one wants inertia either. 

But we have had few technical problems of this magnitude and immediate
impact in Internet evolution and I don't think it's time to stand purely
on process in seeking a resolution. As far as I can see from their
written statements, SPF would love to work with IETF and have IETF
support. But I am sure they can speak for themselves.

I'd like to stick with technical analysis if possible, coupled by a good
dose of pragmatism in find the most practical short term solution.


Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O. Box 10670 Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000 Australia
Tel 61 7 3870 1181
Mobile 0419 667772

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Gordon Fecyk
> Sent: Monday, 23 February 2004 10:19 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: SPF and egos
> 
> > > Let's leave aside issues of who thought of it first
> 
> This is what caused a split in this group to start with.  Meng for all
of
> his
> technical prowess has absolutely no tact.  It would seem this could be
> said
> about many people in his camp, too.
> 
> If Meng and his crew really want to unite all of us under his banner,
he's
> going to have to find a way to soothe the egos.  Some of those egos
may be
> beyond soothing, but I'm not spending over C$2k to visit a foreign
country
> to
> try to sell DMP, or to denounce SPF or RMX or DRIP or anything else,
or to
> comfort my own ego.  Meng and others: Here's your chance.  Make it a
good
> one.
> 
> Don't forget that the Internet is a network of PEOPLE, and we all
deserve
> the
> same respect including the spammers.  They're not stupid and none of
us
> are.
> We all have egos.
> 
> > > and whether it's
> > > proper form to start an initiative like this outside of
> > > asrg/ietf,
> 
> ...and lose the respect of most of the IETF in the process.
> 
> I've been reading a lot about how this little group of volunteers
holds
> this
> thing the marketers call The Internet together.  It's a f******
thankless
> job, yet it's their work that gives the big backbones, big software
> houses,
> along with everyone else, a common field to play on.  No solution to
deal
> with sender verification is going to work without IETF guidance and
> "endorsement," if you could call it that, through the Standard
Process.
> 
> Don't piss them off or we'll have five different schemes with only one
> from
> Microsoft being the most widely used, even if it sucks the most.
> 
> --
> PGP key (0x0AFA039E): <http://www.pan-am.ca/[email protected]>
> What's a PGP Key?  See <http://www.pan-am.ca/free.html>
> GOD BLESS AMER, er, THE INTERNET.
> <http://vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=401&page=4>