Re: IESG intends to publish conflicting RfCs causing loss of legit e-mails

Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have not been able to find a concise description of exactly what havoc > will ensue wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, one of the open issues with SPF is the ability to deal with > forwarded email. One of the most promising solutions to thi

Re: IESG intends to publish conflicting RfCs causing loss of legit e-mails

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > While I have not been following this issue particularly closely, this > appears to be a case where two experiments are using the same codepoint > to enode data with (allegedly) different meaning. Indeed this is the case. Origin

Re: IESG intends to publish conflicting RfCs causing loss of legit e-mails

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Ted Hardie wrote: Hi Frank, This is one of the issues that the IESG believes is at the heart of concerns about using them in tandem. Your message highlights, though, that one of the statements in the IESG note got dropped accidentally. The original said: "the IESG

Re: IESG intends to publish conflicting RfCs causing loss of legit e-mails

Ted, While I have not been following this issue particularly closely, this appears to be a case where two experiments are using the same codepoint to enode data with (allegedly) different meaning. Specifically (quoting from Frank's message): >| Sender ID implementations SHOULD interpret the vers

Re: IESG intends to publish conflicting RfCs causing loss of legit e-mails

Hi Frank, This is one of the issues that the IESG believes is at the heart of concerns about using them in tandem. Your message highlights, though, that one of the statements in the IESG note got dropped accidentally. The original said: "the IESG believes that documenting the different a

IESG intends to publish conflicting RfCs causing loss of legit e-mails

Hi, found in The IESG intends to forward the SPF draft, along with the Sender-ID drafts to the RFC Editor as Experimental RFCs. The SPF draft says: | Without explicit approval of the domain owner, checking other | identities against SPF version 1 records