In
<033001c4d0f2$b4699d60$2766f30a(_at_)development(_dot_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com>
<terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com> writes:
I certainly don't like some of the inferences of the message,
e.g. implies that the information is needed as part of the list, it
is not. Further this list has little, if anything, to do with
Sender ID.
Agreed.
I think deployment of this message should be voted on by the council
BEFORE being done.
Well, since it is Meng's list, we (the community) will have to get
permission from Meng to accept control of the council.
Why is the list being changed at the 11th hour just before the
council is elected?
I strongly suspect that the reason for Meng's post is the inclusion of
the the following text:
Subscription to this list, and posting to it, is a privilege, not a right.
The list operates according to the best practices described at RFC1855.
Revocation of privileges operates according to an abbreviated form of BCP83.
You should also review
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02mar/slides/plenary-3/
The SPF mailing list is intended for constructive discussion and promotion of
SPF.
If you believe that the SPF concept is fundamentally flawed, please subscribe
instead
to the ietf-mxcomp mailing list at http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/
That is, Meng is trying to raise the S/N ratio, tell people to stop
calling people names, and if they don't, he is giving the policy that
he will use to kick people off the list.
For what it is worth, the BCP83 (Best Current Practices #83) document
referenced above is also known as RFC3683 and can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3683.txt
*IF* the SPF council decides to IETF as a basis for their rules of
conduct, the following RFCs may also be appropriate:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt
I suspect that the SenderID promotion, like the inbox event promotion,
has been going on for a long time.
-wayne