Mike Frysinger napsal(a): >> No. Not because I didn't like the answer - because I haven't seen a >> *single* argument *in favour* of using the IMHO completely broken SPF >> thing. > > so what are you looking for ? us to regurgitate the entire SPF argument over > again ?
No. I expect you to _decide_ on the issue, considering that quite a couple of arguments were given against using it, and none was given in favour of using it. (Sorry, but "I happen to disagree" is not a valid or useful one). > infra believes using SPF helps fight spam, you guys believe SPF does not ... > how do you expect to come to a conclusion over such a technology ? > -mike Infra didn't say anything useful, and no, they basically say that it's _not_ an antispam technology and that they'll continue to use it anyway, not subject to debate, the end... Kinda weird, hmmm? Last word on this, as it's getting really a frustrating experience. Quoting your own monthly email: <snip> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote on, let us know ! </snip> Well folks, if you outright refuse to discuss/decide on stuff that people are asking you to discuss/decide on, then please drop the above from your email. I'll reconsider if it's worth wasting the bandwidth to vote for anyone next time. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
