On 08/26/2013 04:55 PM, Jelte Jansen wrote:
>>
>> I'd have thought that the debate here and elsewhere already documented
>> that. Since it's not specific to SPF, perhaps we could do a draft on
>> "overloaded TXT considered harmful" to get it into the
On 08/26/2013 04:49 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> Sorry if that last one came across as dismissive.
>
>> Until such time, I'd personally prefer to see some explicit notion that
>> the odd history of the SPF TXT record should not be seen as a precedent
>> and best practice, rather than hope that this
On 08/26/2013 04:08 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>
> Could you point to anyone, anywhere, who has ever said that the odd
> history of the SPF TXT record means that it is perfectly fine to do
> something similar in the future?
>
Three of the four points on the list that triggered my first message in
On 08/23/2013 04:34 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>
>> I don't know of any (at least ones that are used in the global dns
>> namespace), and I would like to still not know of any in 2033.
>>
>
> Since we agree that the issue you're worried about has not arisen even
> once in the past decade, could you c
On 08/22/2013 07:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <5215cd8d.3080...@sidn.nl> you write:
>> So what makes you think the above 4 points will not be a problem for the
>> next protocol that comes along and needs (apex) RR data? And the one
>> after that?
>
> SPF is ten years old now. It would b
On 08/21/2013 08:44 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>
> Most of the recent arguments against SPF type have come down to the following
> (as far as I can tell):
> a) I can not add SPF RRtype via my provisioning system into my DNS
> servers
> b) My firewall doesl not let SPF Records th
On 08/21/2013 03:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Speaking as the SPFBIS co-chair…
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:55:33AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
>> to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs observations that not all TXT
>> == SPF). In the mean time, declare a suspension of
>> last call to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/06/2010 09:06 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> People from Europe, Japan, Australia, and some other countries don't need a
> visa at all to go to an IETF meeting in the US. People from China, India and
> the other countries are generally backed by empl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/30/2010 06:53 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
>
>> So I can't complain about the get-togethers of any sort, just that there
>> wasn't enough time for them. I would like to encourage the use of IETF
>
