Re: SPF Organization - Questions to ALL particpants on the list on futur

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 04:35, william(at)elan.net wrote:

 1) Yes
1a) B
 2) A
3a) Yes
3b) Yes
3c) No
3d) No
3e) Yes
3f) Yes
 4) A - IETF should have this responsibility 
 5) Yes, Yes

My only comment is in regards to 3 in which I believe the questions
which I answered No to, the committee should be responsible in
delegating or exercising attention over such things which is to say that
they should ensure that such information is available through voluntary
works.  Should said works grow stale become defunct it would then ensure
that something was done to rectify this situation.

Cheers,

James

-- 
James Couzens,
Programmer
                        ^                            ( ( (      
      ((__))         __\|/__        __|+|__        '. ___ .'    
       (00)           (o o)          (0~0)        '  (> <) '    
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features 
SPF and Sender ID.
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

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part