spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Sarcasm (was: overall HELO FAIL)

2005-05-27 15:29:12
Julian Mehnle wrote:
 
This situation requires _tolerance_, not _clarification_.

Suppose I'm an angry user and you're at the support desk, both
as far away as possible from the offending HELO FAIL.

Or in Wayne's HELO scenario only a SOFTFAIL or a TempError -
IMHO incompatible with v=spf1, but that's another issue.

So we're both not in the position to fix this HELO or its
policy immediately.  It escalates to the abuse desk of the
receiver, meanwhile I posted it in nanas or danam, others
told me that I'm stupid which made me madder, and the whole
time it's not clearly specified.

Telling receivers not to perform HELO checks would have
helped him, but that's not what we want, is it?

Yes, we want HELO FAIL to be rejected.  I even want a clear
statement in the spec. just as it was in -00 up to -01pre5.

schlitt-02pre?  I don't know what you're talking about.

The next draft, name TBD.  The "overall FAIL" was removed in
-01pre6.

most of the time it would be a lot easier to understand you
precisely if you used less sarcasm and more context in your
messages.

"schlitt -02pre" wasn't sarcasm, it was an extrapolation from
many draft titles used by Wayne so far.  IIRC he never jumped
from -0N to -0N+1 without testing the water with an -0N+1preI.

So the next can be -02pre1 or -02.  No sarcasm at all in _this_
case.  Admittedly there are other SPF Council cases where I'm
sarcastic, OTOH I make it also very clear when I'm satisfied. 

I try to stay away from some more "sarcastic" threads like say
about the Web page, and I'm really grateful that Mark checked
with Meng who tried to add an obscure "RfC editor note" to -00.

That was important from my POV, apparently also for Wayne, he
mentioned it in the mxcomp thread.  William was probably also
interested, it might even interest the IESG.  But I disgress,

                          Bye, Frank



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