spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IESG evaluation of SPF

2005-04-07 09:53:33
Mark Kramer wrote:
Actually, yes. :) But the IESG suggested "not defined" ("within this
document"), not "undefined" (as a stand-alone phrase). The
former simply means: "not described within this document"; the
latter is much closer in meaning to "unpredictable" (hence,
unrecommended).

Even more hairs splitting. There is no substantial difference between
the meanings of "not defined" and "undefined".

But there is between "not defined within this document" and "undefined"
(as a stand-alone phrase to denote a behavior or result).

I can't see "undefined" (as a stand-alone phrase) to imply "not defined
anywhere" or "unrecommended".

[...]  I mean, it is not unthinkable that something will come along
that, as part of its overall scheme, checks against a header element
they know is set to the same value as the MAIL FROM entity (for which
"v-spf1" records could well be used). "NOT RECOMMENDED" therefore still
feels adequate enough to me.

How is "$SOMETHING can be checked against v=spf1 records if (and only if)
it is known to be identical to MAIL FROM" any different from "only MAIL
FROM can be checked against v=spf1 records"?

I still see "NOT RECOMMENDED" as saying: "Please, don't; unless you
really know what you're doing." Like the manual of my ASUS motherboard
tells me that overclocking the CPU is "NOT RECOMMENDED" (but still
offer many ways to do so, btw).

I am content with saying something to the effect of "Please, don't --
unless you really know what you're doing" (AKA "NOT RECOMMENDED").  I have
not significantly disputed "NOT RECOMMENDED".  Like you, I try not to
fight mostly irrelevant battles.

What I am disputing is saying "Well, I can't give you any advice on
whether to do this or not because IESG tells me I must be neutral on the
issue".

Just pleasing the IESG isn't, and shouldn't ever be, enough.

As "not giving in to the IESG for the sake of not wanting to give in to
the IESG" is not a good enough reason to derail the process, either.

Who is doing that?  Certainly not me.  I think I (and others) have given
good reasons why being neutral on the issue is a bad idea.  Is it
justified to ignore those reasons in order to satisfy the IESG, who has
AFAICT _not_ given any reasons (let alone _good_ ones) for their request?

Everything is about "fitness for a particular purpose", as a lawyer
would say.

This is politics, and I would rather not like the SPF spec to be
influenced by politics.

I am baffled by this statement; as "fitness for a particular purpose" is
precisely about using the right tool for the right job, and therefore
wholly a technical matter. How you see politics in that, is beyond me.

Heh.  Sorry, strike that.  This sentence of mine was supposed to go
somewhere else in my reply before I decided to drop it, but then I
apparently forgot to delete it...

Of course I agree that everything is about fitness for a particular
purpose.  I just don't see any justification for complying with the IESG's
request beyond doing it just for the sake of it.  Really, I don't see one.
Do you?

Perhaps we should ask them what their reasoning is.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>