On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I suggest you look at RFC 2026, and tighten your terminology.
Is this a deliberate troll or are the insults merely gratuious?
You used the wrong terms, as I very politely explained. If you take
correction is insult, that's not my problem. However, it was not
gratuitous.
_some_ testing and codebase should be available before a draft
is put to last call. Otherwise, we are dealing in hypotheticals.
There is considerably more experience of use of SPF today than
there is of application of the vast majority of Proposed standards
and more than a few Draft standard.
I'll stipulate there has been bad past practice, though I doubt as bad as
you say, but even so, bad past practice doesn't justify further bad
practice. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes. It has already been
pointed out nearly all of the previous antispam measures has failed. They
failed largely because they went off half-cocked without sufficient
analysis.
Several days ago it was proposed that some testing be done before last
call. I thought there were many people in favor of that. Indeed, I
would have thought there was a consensus on that direction. Is that
not the case? So what is the rush? I'm still not understanding what
the rush is.
If you really don't know what the rush is then I don't think you
understand the problem.
I guess I don't then. Because if the MTA authorization problem is
serious, then it is more imporantant to have a solution that works, than
one that doesn't work.
I wonder if people are in a rush because they _know_ that if time is spent
on analysis and hostile testing, that their schemes just won't measure up.
--Dean