In <429DEB00(_dot_)1DBE(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
Julian's proposal was voted on, and since it ended in a tie,
the motion was defeated. I really don't like the idea of
re-opening issues, that kind of defeats the point of having
a vote.
My three points are very different from what Julian wanted, in
fact one point is roughly the opposite from what he wanted.
Please create a patch of the exact stuff you want changed.
-02pre1 does not yet have redirect=invalid as a PermError
like an include:invalid, roughly the rest of my point 1.
This is already on the list of issues that need to be
decided.
It's a part of my three combined points posted 2005-05-22. If
it was already on a list of open issues before this date I did
not know it (and BTW, where is this list ?)
The list of issues that I know of for council review was posted
as part of the agenda items to the spf-council list. It has been this
way for the last several council meetings.
[PermError ~ FAIL]
Again, this has been ruled on.
IIRC you discussed PermError ~ SOFTFAIL coming to the decision
that this was wrong. You didn't decide that the draft should
simply reflect the correct state in -00 and some -01pre?, i.e.
PermError ~ FAIL
I do not consider the schlitt-spf-classic-00 semantics correct because
they conflict with mengwong-spf-*. I admit that I have changed my
mind on this subject, but I am growing more confident that the correct
decision is to maintain compatiblity with mengwong-spf-* on this issue.
The PermError description in -02pre1 is still "incomplete", to
put very it mildly. The SPF Council has not yet decided how
to handle this, it only decided that it's not like SOFTFAIL as
in -01. The fix in -02pre1 is insufficient.
Write up the text you want to see.
-wayne