Given I like the simplicity of SPF I'm on the list and
definately hope we can get as many SPF supporters in the working group
so we can ensure that the RFC produced is very compatible wit SPF.
Looking at the alternatives I believe SPF has a lot more going for it
than the others.
Regards,
Jeremy
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 05:23:54PM -0600, wayne wrote:
fyi;
Ted Hardie, an Area Director for the IETF, just sent the following
message to the MXCOMP mailing list. Basically, this means that there
will almost certainly be an official Internet standard (RFC) created
for the stuff that SPF tries to address. Whether the IETF creates an
RFC that is compatible with SPF is far less certain.
The IETF works on "rough consensus", so the resulting RFC will depend
on who shows up on the MXCOMP mailing list. As Meng mentioned in a
previous announcement, anyone can join the mailing list and
participate, but you should try to follow the standards of conduct
that the IETF mailing lists try to adhere to.
If you're not familiar with IETF procedure, you may wish to read
http://www.ietf.org/tao.html
If you want to join the mailing list, see:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/index.html
-wayne
In <p06020414bc7fd996860d(_at_)[129(_dot_)46(_dot_)227(_dot_)161]> Ted Hardie
<hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
Howdy,
The IESG approved sending the MARID charter
out for public review at today's meeting. The charter will
now go to the IETF's main list for a two week discussion
period, and the IETF will notify those organizations with
which it has liaisons that it is considering this work. This is
the normal second step in the progression of getting a working
group charter approved. The only change to the charter
since it was last sent to the list is the addition of a Technical
Advisor from the DNS community; Rob Austein has agreed
to take that role (and one or more additional advisors may
be appointed). Adding an advisor (or advisors) here is meant to ensure
that the group has early cross area review with the DNS community,
which should help us avoid later delay.
As I said early on, please do not wait for the charter
to complete this process before working on the issues; though
this step is necessary and issues may be raised, the most effective
behavior at this point is to go forward as if the charter were
already in force.
My thanks to all of you for your contributions on
the charter and to the work we're taking on.
regards,
Ted Hardie
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200403.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
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