On Sun, 2004-07-25 at 04:09, Shevek wrote:
> This isn't about the naming of the library, this is about the existence of
> ANY other SPF project whatsoever, other than the one he is sitting on top
> of.
Excuse me? Were you not so arrogant and completely void of humility
Shevek, and had actually apologized* to me, I would be working on
libspf-alt for several weeks.
* See http://moscow.6o4.ca/shevek_log2.html
Wayne formerly has been a complete gentleman to me. He submitted
patches to my library, and when he decided he still wanted to write his
own, he even notified me before he published letting me know what he was
going to do. I was disappointed, because it would mean he would no
longer be contributing. Under no circumstances have I expressed
negativity towards libspf-alt or ANY other alternative library (of which
there are upwards of 12 others).
Man, I'm seeing a very strong theme between both you and Wayne. You
both make statements that either absolute falsehoods or are made without
qualification. Here is an example:
Conversation with Wayne (grumpy)
irc.pobox.com Sat Jul 24 18:50:05 PDT 2004
http://moscow.6o4.ca/wayne.html
<grumpy> james: good point. It was *because* I was helping test your code
and saw how bad it is that I decided that there needs to be a stable
implementation. that's what my implementation is.
<james> now hang on a minute, you are going to have to back that statement up
<james> what is so "bad" or unstable about it?
<james> and how thoughtful and unselfish of you to instead of helping fix my
supposedly "bad code", you will start from scratch on your own
<grumpy> james: I don't care. Your implemenation still doesn't do everything
that M:S:Q does, it doesn't have support for as many MTAs, it doesn't
do everything the RFC calls for and you are reinventing the wheel
<james> grumpy tsk tsk
<james> do not skirt the issue
<grumpy> james: I sent you patches
<james> please qualify your statement
<grumpy> james: you are not productive to talk with.
<grumpy> bye
You see how that works? There is an accusation completely VOID of
qualification. And this is what I have been dealing with all along.
Both of you love to spout out complete falsehoods and then you run off
when confronted for validation. I can spout off that I'm JFK till I am
blue in the face, but it is without merit until I would provide PROOF.
And here is another one:
<grumpy> but as far as other lies/deceptions from you, we could start
with your initial claim that you would be "releasing your library
within two days" (pharaphrased) when it actually took a couple of
weeks before we could get a buggy library out of you
<james> thats not a lie, or a deception, thats a missed deadline
<james> please do not try to associate a lie with me in that manner
<grumpy> It was trusting your claim that lead me to abandon my initial SPF
implementation
<grumpy> oh bull, you kept stalling
<james> well whose fault is that?
<grumpy> and talling
<james> does that give you the right to behave as you have?
<grumpy> james: I wrote the complete second implementation in less time than
it took for your "delay"
<grumpy> yes, it does.
Ohhhh boy. Are we in grade three here? If I tell my wife I'm going to
be home at 7PM, and I end up home at 9PM because I got caught in
traffic, does that make me a liar or a deceiver? Wayne is being
ridiculous and is grasping at straws to find reasons to justify his own
behaviour.
Furthermore, you can see he happily uses the above stated ludicrous
reason as basis for all of this completely counterproductive behaviour.
Perhaps you could stop with the false accusations and focus on relaying
what most people know as "FACTS".
FACT: libSPF is older than libspf2 ergo more time in the wild with
similar development cycles leads to greater potential stability
FACT: libSPF has LESS than HALF the size of libspf2 whilst maintaining
RFC compliance* ergo less code leads to less potential bugs and thus
definitely leads to greater stability and easier debugging.
FACT: libSPF is not "reinventing the wheel". Its absurd to think that
my library which has been in development LONGER would be reinventing
anything, I find that statement rather comical. In REALITY all other
subsequent implementations although I wouldn't be so crude as to accuse
them of reinventing the wheel, are definitely not pioneering anything as
they have all had my library as a reference implementation--including
libspf-alt/libspf2.
FACT: Re: "I decided that there needs to be a stable implementation",
I'm sorry, but I have no clue what world Wayne lives in, but under no
circumstances is starting another library from scratch going to lead to
greater stability sooner than simply assisting an existing one, one
which was nearly complete.
FACT: I am in COMPLETE favour with alternative libraries.
FACT: I am in COMPLETE DISFAVOUR with alternative libraries who
intentionally name themselves in such a way as to cause confusion over
another library through a desire to appear as if to be "The" library or
an officiated one.
> There have been many discussions on this subject (which most parties have
> chosen not to make public) in the course of which this has become clear.
There have been many discussions when certain parties *cough* Meng have
said things such as:
[freeside(~mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com)] with the shevek crap, i'll ask
him to rename the lib because calling things whatever2 is bad for
versioning anyway
You do not wish it public because you wish for it to go away, much like
a criminal when exiting a crime scene has a strong desire to escape
without notice.
> I suggest that as long as everyone is happy with what they, personally,
> are doing, why bother with this huge "propaganda" campaign? I'm attempting
> to avoid posting on this subject in support of this view.
I think I've established why. Quite often you will find that silence is
an admission of guilt.
> I'm very sorry, you'd have to be libspf4 now. The pissing contest has
> already entered the third generation. Quick, someone register libsrs3.org
> and then we can really have fun.
*sigh*
> I suggest you simply choose whichever works better for you, or makes you
> feel warm and fuzzy inside, and relax and watch the blinkenlichten
> (presumably the ones on your modem or router if this pissing contest is
> going to heat up again).
There doesn't need to be a pissing contest. Whats absolutely fantastic
is how both you and Wayne skirt the issue each time it is raised. You
know I think you would make a great liar, err lawyer.
Quite frankly as damaging as this possibly is through how it may make
you, Wayne, or myself look, its worth it, and I'll tell you why. I've
been told repeatedly to "suck it up" and "its for the greater good" to
stay idle whilst this disgusting behaviour continues. Well, as anyone
who knows me either through my posts on here, or through other means
will probably have already realized, I'm rather outspoken, and it would
be against the very fabric that makes up my personality to sit here and
at the very LEAST not say anything.
Remaining silent isn't being mature, in this case its an attempt at
skirting valid issues.
I've offered to purchase a new domain name for libspf2 and the offer
remains on the table. I've also offered to freely host libspf-alt's
files as a mirror or otherwise.
At this time both offers have been rejected.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
( ( (
((__)) __lib__ __SPF__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com
> This isn't about the naming of the library, this is about the existence of
> ANY other SPF project whatsoever, other than the one he is sitting on top
> of.
Excuse me? Were you not so arrogant and completely void of humility
Shevek, and had actually apologized* to me, I would be working on
libspf-alt for several weeks.
* See http://moscow.6o4.ca/shevek_log2.html
Wayne formerly has been a complete gentleman to me. He submitted
patches to my library, and when he decided he still wanted to write his
own, he even notified me before he published letting me know what he was
going to do. I was disappointed, because it would mean he would no
longer be contributing. Under no circumstances have I expressed
negativity towards libspf-alt or ANY other alternative library (of which
there are upwards of 12 others).
Man, I'm seeing a very strong theme between both you and Wayne. You
both make statements that either absolute falsehoods or are made without
qualification. Here is an example:
Conversation with Wayne (grumpy)
irc.pobox.com Sat Jul 24 18:50:05 PDT 2004
http://moscow.6o4.ca/wayne.html
<grumpy> james: good point. It was *because* I was helping test your code
and saw how bad it is that I decided that there needs to be a stable
implementation. that's what my implementation is.
<james> now hang on a minute, you are going to have to back that statement up
<james> what is so "bad" or unstable about it?
<james> and how thoughtful and unselfish of you to instead of helping fix my
supposedly "bad code", you will start from scratch on your own
<grumpy> james: I don't care. Your implemenation still doesn't do everything
that M:S:Q does, it doesn't have support for as many MTAs, it doesn't
do everything the RFC calls for and you are reinventing the wheel
<james> grumpy tsk tsk
<james> do not skirt the issue
<grumpy> james: I sent you patches
<james> please qualify your statement
<grumpy> james: you are not productive to talk with.
<grumpy> bye
You see how that works? There is an accusation completely VOID of
qualification. And this is what I have been dealing with all along.
Both of you love to spout out complete falsehoods and then you run off
when confronted for validation. I can spout off that I'm JFK till I am
blue in the face, but it is without merit until I would provide PROOF.
And here is another one:
<grumpy> but as far as other lies/deceptions from you, we could start
with your initial claim that you would be "releasing your library
within two days" (pharaphrased) when it actually took a couple of
weeks before we could get a buggy library out of you
<james> thats not a lie, or a deception, thats a missed deadline
<james> please do not try to associate a lie with me in that manner
<grumpy> It was trusting your claim that lead me to abandon my initial SPF
implementation
<grumpy> oh bull, you kept stalling
<james> well whose fault is that?
<grumpy> and talling
<james> does that give you the right to behave as you have?
<grumpy> james: I wrote the complete second implementation in less time than
it took for your "delay"
<grumpy> yes, it does.
Ohhhh boy. Are we in grade three here? If I tell my wife I'm going to
be home at 7PM, and I end up home at 9PM because I got caught in
traffic, does that make me a liar or a deceiver? Wayne is being
ridiculous and is grasping at straws to find reasons to justify his own
behaviour.
Furthermore, you can see he happily uses the above stated ludicrous
reason as basis for all of this completely counterproductive behaviour.
Perhaps you could stop with the false accusations and focus on relaying
what most people know as "FACTS".
FACT: libSPF is older than libspf2 ergo more time in the wild with
similar development cycles leads to greater potential stability
FACT: libSPF has LESS than HALF the size of libspf2 whilst maintaining
RFC compliance* ergo less code leads to less potential bugs and thus
definitely leads to greater stability and easier debugging.
FACT: libSPF is not "reinventing the wheel". Its absurd to think that
my library which has been in development LONGER would be reinventing
anything, I find that statement rather comical. In REALITY all other
subsequent implementations although I wouldn't be so crude as to accuse
them of reinventing the wheel, are definitely not pioneering anything as
they have all had my library as a reference implementation--including
libspf-alt/libspf2.
FACT: Re: "I decided that there needs to be a stable implementation",
I'm sorry, but I have no clue what world Wayne lives in, but under no
circumstances is starting another library from scratch going to lead to
greater stability sooner than simply assisting an existing one, one
which was nearly complete.
FACT: I am in COMPLETE favour with alternative libraries.
FACT: I am in COMPLETE DISFAVOUR with alternative libraries who
intentionally name themselves in such a way as to cause confusion over
another library through a desire to appear as if to be "The" library or
an officiated one.
> There have been many discussions on this subject (which most parties have
> chosen not to make public) in the course of which this has become clear.
There have been many discussions when certain parties *cough* Meng have
said things such as:
[freeside(~mengwong@dumbo.pobox.com)] with the shevek crap, i'll ask
him to rename the lib because calling things whatever2 is bad for
versioning anyway
You do not wish it public because you wish for it to go away, much like
a criminal when exiting a crime scene has a strong desire to escape
without notice.
> I suggest that as long as everyone is happy with what they, personally,
> are doing, why bother with this huge "propaganda" campaign? I'm attempting
> to avoid posting on this subject in support of this view.
I think I've established why. Quite often you will find that silence is
an admission of guilt.
> I'm very sorry, you'd have to be libspf4 now. The pissing contest has
> already entered the third generation. Quick, someone register libsrs3.org
> and then we can really have fun.
*sigh*
> I suggest you simply choose whichever works better for you, or makes you
> feel warm and fuzzy inside, and relax and watch the blinkenlichten
> (presumably the ones on your modem or router if this pissing contest is
> going to heat up again).
There doesn't need to be a pissing contest. Whats absolutely fantastic
is how both you and Wayne skirt the issue each time it is raised. You
know I think you would make a great liar, err lawyer.
Quite frankly as damaging as this possibly is through how it may make
you, Wayne, or myself look, its worth it, and I'll tell you why. I've
been told repeatedly to "suck it up" and "its for the greater good" to
stay idle whilst this disgusting behaviour continues. Well, as anyone
who knows me either through my posts on here, or through other means
will probably have already realized, I'm rather outspoken, and it would
be against the very fabric that makes up my personality to sit here and
at the very LEAST not say anything.
Remaining silent isn't being mature, in this case its an attempt at
skirting valid issues.
I've offered to purchase a new domain name for libspf2 and the offer
remains on the table. I've also offered to freely host libspf-alt's
files as a mirror or otherwise.
At this time both offers have been rejected.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
( ( (
((__)) __lib__ __SPF__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com