-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Spfdiscuss Sub... uh, no... Bjoern Kahl wrote:
Hello!
[ First time post to the list after one year reading ]
Welcome!
Good work, I really like the draft, found only two or three problems.
[...]
I simplified several sentences, but see for yourself.
The last sentence in paragraph three under point "2.":
Requiring participants in the SPFv1 experiment to "opt out" from also
participating in the Sender ID experiment by publishing an empty
"spf2.0" record cannot be considered an acceptable solution either,
both based on principle and given the large number of existing "v=spf1"
records that were published before Sender ID was conceived[9].
raises the question "why is that bad?". If it can be done in a short
sentence, it may be usefull to add why this re-use of "v=spf1" will harm
participant in one or the other experiment.
This is explained in detail in the earlier IESG appeal that is attached to
the IAB appeal.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD6nC8wL7PKlBZWjsRAvlVAJ9D/3pmxiqagMXM/vnvVdZMXWd/twCdFNay
5X//R/KLwLenfCHr8qO6KZ4=
=ObW2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com