> Let me phrase it this way: the IESG should not sanction conflicting
> experiments by publishing conflicting specifications,
I agree.
But I do not believe that SPF and Sender-ID conflict in any way
whatsoever and this was accepted by the WG right up to the point where
people started to complai
> "wayne" == wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
wayne> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Andrew
wayne> Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But since you brought this up: if you (the author of the
>> document) do not consider this to be an experiment, then
>> perhaps the IETF should
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the goal of the SPF Classic draft was intended to capture a point
> in time pre-dating semantic extensions related to RFC-2822 defined
> content, then perhaps the draft should be on an historic track. ; )
RFC2026 says:
4.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Aug 26, 2005, at 12:56 PM, wayne wrote:
>
>>> SPF Classic has not achieved the goal of capturing a pristine version
>>> of pre-MARID semantics. With some semantic changes introduced by the
>>> SPF Classic draft itself, [...]
>>>
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Andrew Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But since you brought this up: if you (the author of the document) do
> not consider this to be an experiment, then perhaps the IETF should
> not publish SPF as an Experimental RFC.
I asked for the IESG to not consider the SPF
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "wayne" == wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> wayne> I asked for the IESG to not consider the SPF I-D to be
> wayne> experiemental. It was turned down. According to Ted,
> wayne> *none* of the IESG members expr
On Aug 26, 2005, at 7:53 AM, wayne wrote:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Andrew Newton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But since you brought this up: if you (the author of the document) do
not consider this to be an experiment, then perhaps the IETF should
not publish SPF as an Experimental RFC.
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:23 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> I do not believe that one group should be able to block a proposal they
> do not like by alleging a non-existent conflict.
A conflict does exist interpreting v=spf1 records in a PRA scope. I had
a customer who was a victim of joe-j
On Aug 26, 2005, at 12:56 PM, wayne wrote:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Douglas
Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If the goal of the SPF Classic draft was intended to capture a point
in time pre-dating semantic extensions related to RFC-2822 defined
content, then perhaps the draft should be on
On 8/26/05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let me phrase it this way: the IESG should not sanction conflicting
> > experiments by publishing conflicting specifications,
>
> I agree.
>
> But I do not believe that SPF and Sender-ID conflict in any way
> whatsoever and this was
Julian Mehnle writes:
> As my appeal[1] pointed out, at the time draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 was
> submitted for experimental status, there was no "running code" that
> actually interpreted "v=spf1" as "spf2.0/mfrom,pra".
Perhaps you shouldn't have said that. Sendmail's sid-milter has used
v=sp
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
>>
>> Basically the IESG decided that accurate documentation of the running
>> code is more important than documenting something that does not exist,
>> and maybe never will exist.
>
> As my appeal[1] pointed ou
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However SID drafts are going for EXPERIMENTAL status and are NOT purely
> documentation of running code but rather IETF sanctioned internet-wide
> experiment with possible intention to move to standard if experiment
> is su
wayne writes:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Dick St.Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Julian Mehnle writes:
> >> As my appeal[1] pointed out, at the time draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 was
> >> submitted for experimental status, there was no "running code" that
> >> actually interpreted "v=spf1
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Dick St.Peters wrote:
Do you know if Sendmail Inc. is committed to conforming to the RFCs
and will change if the RFCs change?
You'll have to ask them. However, I suspect it's safe to say that
they will conform to any RFCs that become standards.
SPF & SID document if the
> "wayne" == wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
wayne> Isn't the time to fix the problem now? Before the
wayne> experiment is run?
Can you convince the sender ID authors to do so and to change their
implementations?
I don't think the IETF or IESG could accomplish that. If you can t
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Sam Hartman wrote:
"wayne" == wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
wayne> Isn't the time to fix the problem now? Before the
wayne> experiment is run?
Can you convince the sender ID authors to do so and to change their
implementations?
I don't think the IETF or IESG
17 matches
Mail list logo
