Re: Trouble with Sender Authentication

[wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <CA634898-FCE8-4787-B860-669C685272D0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Douglas Otis <dotis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Nov 2, 2006, at 5:56 PM, wayne wrote:
>
>> In <58CA41E0-1708-41A8-BE6B-7EBB343479A9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Douglas
>> Otis <dotis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> This list remains available for continued discussions of any MARID
>>> related issues. The spf-discuss reflector required participants to
>>> first agree with the promotion of SPF.  An insurmountable barrier
>>> for some. : )
>>
>> The SPF-discuss mailing list has never required you to agree with
>> the promotion of SPF.
>
> Review the archive and you'll find a posting of the agreement
> initially required before subscribing to spf-discuss.  While it may
> have changed, this was the reason for not participating on that  list.
> The MARID list is still functional.

Yes, I saw your post.  People pointed out to you that you were wrong
back then, and you are still wrong today.

Constructive critisism is on-topic for the spf-discuss list.  So is
the promotion of SPF.  I have removed the suggestion that if you think
SPF is fundementally flawed that you should come here instead.




>> It wasn't until your -01 version of your draft that you actually
>> presented hard data in your Appendix A.  Your data doesn't back up
>> your 1000x claims.
>
> 45 pages in the addendum trace SPF resolving a single name at about
> 64:1 increase in traffic.

Nice to see that you agree that your data doesn't back up your claims,
but even your 64:1 number is bogus.


-wayne