Hi, some questions to the SPF Council, all quotes taken from
<http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/now/irc_log.html>
- Where is the allegded draft -01pre3 ?
| 22:48 <grumpy> The "clarification" is in the -01pre3 draft I
| just announced here a little while ago
- Where was this announced ?
- Where was it discussed ? Who discussed it ?
- Which person added the "RfC editor note" to draft -00 if it
was not the RfC editor ?
| 22:46 <grumpy> to the best of my knowledge, the RFC editor
| has *not* changed that keyword.
| 22:47 <grumpy> that is a note in the IESG stuff.
- Why did this anoymous add this "RfC editor note", and who
authorized this note if it was not the RfC editor ?
- Is it standard IETF praxis to add anonymous notes to drafts,
and in which IETF standard (e.g. BCP) is this documented ?
| 22:52 <grumpy> I think we also need to contact the IESG/IETF
| and explain that spf-classic-01 is *NOT* part
| of the MARID process and is *NOT* part of
| SenderID
- Amen, and you could also "contact" spf-discuss about this:
: Subject: Re: draft-newton-maawg-spf-considerations-00
: Newsgroups: gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss
: CC: Andrew Newton <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us>, <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net>
: Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:21:13 +0200
| 22:55 <grumpy> it just hadn't been discussed on spf-discuss
- Abosolutely nothing has been discussed on spf-discuss for
months with some Council members. There's not one article
by Meng in 2005, and not much more from you or Chuck... :-(
| 23:02 <Julian> Motion: The SPF specification shall explicitly
| and clearly recommend against checking SPFv1
| (v=spf1) records against non-RFC2821
| identities (HELO/EHLO and MAIL FROM). The RFC
| 2119 compliant wording "NOT RECOMMENDED" shall
| be used.
[... (ayes) ...]
| 23:02 <csm-laptop> so ordered
- Fine. Silly jokes about Radu's ideas and how cool it is to
be ignorant about what's discussed in the SPF community noted.
But OTOH that was probalbly the last meeting of the Council
before the six months of its initial mandate end. Bye, Frank