-----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 Mark
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:45 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] IESG evaluation of SPF
-----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.
How about, "Outside the scope of the SPF design".
Scott Kitterman