Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

Dave Crocker wrote: > > I keep trying to understand why the SMTP use of records should be any > different than its use of A records. Haven't heard a solid explanation, > nevermind seen consensus forming around it. > It seems there are two ways of looking at this: (1) records in th

Re: Fwd: Pingsta Invitation

I did sign up some time back (careful to use a password distinct from everything else, and making sure that what little information I put there is already visible somewhere else) just to have a look. It appears to have only about 50 members so far. It does appear to be a legitimate attempt at

Re: Currency Exchange in Montreal

Clint Chaplin wrote: > My hotel (Intercontinental) is quoting 1.054 for their currency > exchange. Knowing the current wholesale exchange rate, this means > that the hotel is charging about 7% premium. > > Anybody run across something better around the convention center? > Thanks. There are a num

Re: The Value of Reputation

John Leslie wrote: > The question of standards for reputation and accreditation, IMHO, >deserves IETF work and could deliver great value. But to be clear, I >do not think it belongs in DKIM. > > > I strongly agree. By CCing the ietf-dkim list on my message I didn't mean to imply that the work

Re: The Value of Reputation

John Leslie wrote: >Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>On Dec 24, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: >> >> >> >>>Reputation remains the only solution able to abate the bulk of abuse. >>> >>> >>... I think most of us pretty much agree about the critical role of >>r

Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

Dave Crocker wrote: > We have agreed to the addition of an enhancement that provides a good > alternative to the existing set of two algorithms. > > That is quite different from tossing out over-the-wire backward > compatibility. > > I have not seen the group agree that a sender of an (ESTG) DKIMv

Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

Frank Ellermann wrote: >Tony Hansen wrote: > > > >>I would be happy with the text that was used in the xmpp >>charter >> >> > >+1 > >And is no >strong objection, or is it ? > > No, it's not an objection to the text used in the xmpp chart

Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)

The IESG wrote (quoting the proposed DKIM charter): > Since experimentation resulted in significant Internet deployment of these > specifications, the DKIM working group will make every reasonable attempt to > keep changes compatible with what is deployed, making incompatible changes only > when t