Re: SPF and egos

Ian Peter wrote:

>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
>
>  
>
Is SPAM really a technical problem?  Clearly SPAM is a problem, but it 
isn't clear to me that SPAM is a technical problem.  The real source of 
the problem with SPAM is that there are some people who are ethically 
challenged who misuse it.

Now, we are all technicians and we're working on technical solutions for 
this non-technical problem.  And maybe that's why we're not making much 
progress.

Are there web pages that describe SPF and LAMP (and some of the other 
proposals ) in more detail?  I came to the discussion late, and I missed 
the URLs for those pages.  Thank you.


Jeff