Julian Mehnle wrote:
It seems we lost track of the many council review requests,
which indeed have reached a somewhat inflationary use.
.......................................^^^^^^^^^^^^
IIRC 4 from you, 3 from Scott, 2 from me, 1 from Mark.
The RfC 2828 issue was no formal review request, I mentioned
it anyway in the new thread "pointers for the Council / Wayne"
New thread as wanted by you. And sure like hell the Council
discussed "authorize" vs. "authenticate" without RfC 2828 :-(
If at all possible, we really should decide things by
argument, not by voting.
Yes, please make this possible. Pure fun like a "sign" vote not
withstanding.
Please give more context.
<http://mid.gmane.org/Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0505202314510(_dot_)32504(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
SPFv1 _does_ support multiple scopes
The v=spf1 terminology is multiple identities.
Also, I doubt this will cause any political harm.
Then let's agree to disagree. I never liked Meng's "unified -
CYA - integrate all ideas" cheeseplate approach. I have no
desire to embrace and choke MTAMARK by "ptr" or CSV by "helo".
Let alone "pra".
Bye, Frank