On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Arvel Hathcock
<arvel(_dot_)hathcock(_at_)altn(_dot_)com> wrote:
The phrasing of the query for a poll is a challenge, here.
Nope. The question is on the removal of the NXDOMAIN step from the working
group draft. One side wants that, the other side doesn't. It's no more
challenging than when we followed the exact same procedure for removal of
the "tree-walk" step. Both sides have explained their case and it's now
time for the chairs to figure out where the consensus is (my opinion).
I agree with Arvel.
Dave, I don't think this necessarily torpedoes what you and John are
trying to do. As mentioned to me, 10 of the 22 people who participated
in the past vote gave their approval for, or were involved in creation
of, this current draft. That's not a majority, but it's not far from
it. I think it might survive a vote.
The reason I am cranky about this is because it feels watered down and
only half-useful to avoid any specificity around the domain existence
check. I am worried that it will result in poor guidance for
implementation in software, and by extension, poor implementation in
software.
But, if that's what is carried by even a straw poll, that pretty much
settles it, and I'd get on board.
Best,
Al Iverson
--
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA
Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html