-----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 18:56
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] IESG evaluation of SPF
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.
And I was amongst those. :)
I said to Scott:
Your suggestion covers that idea. But it may sound a bit too
neutral. I would, myself, probably more go for something which stresses
the (probable) unfavorable result of the action ...
And:
As long as we can all agree on a wording which makes clear that using
"v=spf1" records for anything else than what they were designed for, is
undesireable because there are cases that are known to give incorrect
results, then I would say we are on the same page.
I also said, to Frank,
Personally, I am not jumping to "go renegade" over the wording of this
paragraph. If we can get this thing passed with wording that
says: "NOT RECOMMENDED", then that, to me, will suffice for now.
I guess that is where my "back paddling" came from with regard to using
"MUST NOT". It struck me as a bit odd, that when the RFC Editor makes a
sugesstion to tone words down, that our reaction would then be to do the
exact opposite and propose an even stronger wording. In that context I
said, and still say, that, AFAIAC, "NOT RECOMMENDED", for the time being,
is good enough for me.
William, and I myself also, noted that we were somewhat surprised by the
role the RFC Editor has taken in this matter, as it seems "out of line"
for him to propose/make draft changes beyond his editorial duties (as
outlined by William and me).
I propose we seek clarification on the matter, with the RFC editor (if it
was really him, and not a note *to* the RFC editor). Until that time, it
is hard to place his words -- let alone, formulate an appropriate
response/action on our part. I just proposed this item for the next
agenda.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx