Re: Sender-ID != SPF
2004-10-31 09:52:43
Paul Iadonisi writes:
Unfortunately, with the apparent power-grab of RFC3929, I think
we're likely to see much, much worse.
«In no way should this experiment or any future BCP for this small
number of cases take precedence over the IETF's normal mode of
operation.»
So, basically, if we can't agree on the mailing list, 3929
experimentally suggests trying a different way.
Some power grab.
Arnt
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ..., John Levine
- Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ..., wayne
- Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ..., Daniel Senie
- Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ..., John Levine
- Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ..., Paul Iadonisi
- Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ..., John Levine
- Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ..., Sam Varshavchik
Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ..., Koen Martens
Re: SPF deployment, was RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision ..., Paul S. Brown
|
|
|