-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Newton wrote: > Wayne Schlitt wrote: > > Andrew Newton wrote: > > > If this is the source of the conflict, then BOTH experiments should > > > not use the v=spf1 records. > > > > The stated goal of draft-schlitt-spf-classic is to document SPF, > > basically as it was before the IETF got involved. Yes, the IETF is > > calling it an experiment, which I don't agree with. It is > > documenting an existing, well established, protocol. > > > > Are you saying that the IETF shouldn't publish an RFC that documents > > SPF? > > I stated that the SPF and Sender ID experiments should not use the > v=spf1 records to avoid conflict. [...]
I does not make sense in any practical way whatsoever to make SPFv1 not use "v=spf1" records. The fact that the IESG chose to perceive SPF as an experiment doesn't change that, either. I know that there are many people who would like to eradicate SPF from history for a variety of reasons, but (a) it just cannot be done, and (b) many other people, me included, would consider it a gross waste, because it is evidently far from useless (even if a successor specification might be desirable, or if other protocols are also not useless). Please also remember that nobody is asking for Sender ID not to make use of "v=spf1" records _at_all_. The appeal is about Sender ID using them for PRA checking, so please be careful when wording statements like the above. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDD5N/wL7PKlBZWjsRAhO3AJwLjjOYmSmfsWeyvKOFfkphLZ347wCZAXfJ 5w2QFFDT7lWKI/dpAQkb7u4= =cxJI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf