-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of
Julian Mehnle
Sent: donderdag 7 april 2005 0:15
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Cc: jbglube(_at_)sympatico(_dot_)ca
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] IESG evaluation of SPF
The IESG suggested this sentence read:
"Checking other identities against SPF records is not
defined in this document."
Although the council has not made a formal decision on that
(and perhaps won't), I can predict with high confidence that
this proposed change will _not_ be approved the council.
Hi John,
I am one of the council members, too, and I concur with Julian, that the
likelihood of this proposal being adopted is close to nil. Julian's
rationale is clear, methinks.
I would like to add, though, that I might be persuaded to have the
sentence say:
"Checking other identities against SPF records is undocumented."
"undocumented", AFAICT, has a subtle connotation, within the technical
world, which rings close to: "You could probably do it, but the procedure
is not recommended; so, go ahead, but at your own risk."
I will gladly bring the matter up with our draft editor, and other council
members, of course. :)
Furthermore, I have been following spf-discuss, and the proposals made
therein to add changes to the SPF specs -- some of them with rather
far-reaching implications. Though I cannot speak for all, of course, I can
predict with high confidence, that the council, with me, will stay
focussed foremost on getting the current IETF experimental status; and
that we will not consider submitting radical changes, as far as the IETF
track is concerned, until the experimental status has been secured.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx