Well, I guess I should probably do things out of my planned order...
First off, I would like to apologize for my absence on spf-discuss. I
have not been totally absent from the SPF community, but most of what
I've done has either been on the #spf IRC channel, or behind the
scenes. For example, I've switched ISPs because the SPF-related
trusted-forwarder DNS whitelist was causing me to go over quota on my
old ISP. This caused a cascade of things that needed to be fixed, but
much of my time has been spent on family related matters, a project
that paid money, and a few non-SPF related projects.
I would like to thank Todd Herr for helping me out with some of the
ISP change problems.
I have also been working some on the SPF-classic draft. I'm afraid that
the working documents have almost exclusively been mentioned on the
#spf IRC channel. Each revision was made with the assumption that
"just a few more changes needed to be done, and I'll throw it off to
the spf-discuss list." Then people come up with lots of good
suggestions, and I get distracted with other projects and it sits. :-<
Anyway, all of the drafts can be found at:
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/
The most recent version is:
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre3.html
As per some comments I made in today's SPF council meeting, I had
intended to announce an 01pre4 release here tonight, and I may still,
but I think it is best that I reply to Frank's message now with much
of the stuff I was going to say in the 01pre4 announcement.
Expect the 01pre4 version to be announced here soon, and expect me to
ignore all comments on the 01pre3 version. Read it if you want to get
a jump on things, but the 01pre4 version will be the reference point
for all changes.
I will not say that I've kept up on all the posts here and that I've
just been quiet. I haven't kept up. I've read many posts, I've
skimmed probably over 25% of all posts, but I certainly haven't read
everything.
In <42705A4B(_dot_)C4(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
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 ?
Frank:
The 01pre3 draft is not "alleged", it is in the same location as the
01pre2 draft that you reviewed.
| 22:48 <grumpy> The "clarification" is in the -01pre3 draft I
| just announced here a little while ago
- Where was this announced ?
By "here", I meant the #spf-council IRC channel.
One of the things that apparently broke during the ISP switch-over was
the posting of the #spf-council IRC logs to the spf-council mailing
list. I've just fixed this.
- Where was it discussed ? Who discussed it ?
It was discussed by you and me, and Julian, and some of the comments I
picked up here, some comments made by the IESG review, and some
comments made on various IETF WG mailing lists (DNS, SMTP and RFC822).
- Which person added the "RfC editor note" to draft -00 if it
was not the RfC editor ?
The draft found at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-00.txt
contains no RFC editor note. To the best of my knowledge, there was
only a suggestion of a note by one IESG member.
| 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 ?
They didn't.
- Is it standard IETF praxis to add anonymous notes to drafts,
and in which IETF standard (e.g. BCP) is this documented ?
I know of none, but am willing to learn.
| 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
Yes, I saw your email on this. Thank you for forwarding it. I was in
the process of writting a reply to it when I decided to reply to your
email.
| 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... :-(
Indeed, I have not posted enough to spf-discuss. I am sorry.
| 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.
I do not remember any jokes about Radu's ideas. I certainly do not
think it is "cool" to be ignorant of what has happened here.
But OTOH that was probalbly the last meeting of the Council
before the six months of its initial mandate end. Bye, Frank
Good point. It may be time to do something about that.
-wayne