John Glube wrote:
if you read what Andy Newton, Carl Hutzler and John Levine
recently wrote on the Marid mailing list
John said that the SPF site and its hype is a disgrace. In
some cases I'm radically supporting him. E.g. draft-hutzler.
C/R systems. or the old SPF site.
Carl said he uses SPF PASS for "AIUPG" (the opposite of Meng's
"AGUPI"). I think that's a good idea.
Andy knows Wayne's and my objections to his "considerations".
In one case it was a simple but crucial typo. In another case
it was "us" withholding draft -01 weeks after the decision to
remove the zone cut. There probably will be -01 considerations.
The -00 SPF considerations were erroneous for several reasons,
I mentioned two here, including the one where it's really not
Andy's but "our" fault. For some problems in his memo see also
<http://mid.gmane.org/42684379(_dot_)45AE(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
As to the agreement which I reference, ask Meng.
I'm not interested in 2+2=5 agreements, I just _know_ that it's
wrong, and Meng also admitted that 2+2 is not 5. In the mxcomp
thread started by you. And the former MARID WG Chairs admitted
it, too. It's all in public archives. This alleged CYA "Olson
objection" is in fact my objection.
And I feel very strongly about it. I had a setup where I got
a From != MAIL FROM based on 2476 "enforced submission rights",
which is AFAIK one aspect of draft-hutzler-spamops-04.
RfC 2476bis was approved without any "add Sender if necessary".
One PRA incompatibility after the other. It's simply madness.
Sure, let MS "experiment". But with their own sender policies.
* Given the issues surrounding the SIDF protocol, this is
why SIDF is being considered for experimental status and not
for standard track.
So if it's FUBAR it's an "experiment". Fine, then SPF is most
definitely no "experiment". It has zero problems with 2476bis,
zero problems with moderated newsgroups, and zero problems with
mailing lists (1123 5.3.6(b)). This is all _not_ true for PRA.
for now the IESG has refused to give SIDF a passing vote for
consideration for experimental status.
Tell Jim (= James in <http://tinyurl.com/6lczr> ) what he has
to do. It's obvious, one SHOULD about v=spf1 is plain wrong.
I'm almost certain that you're wrong, at least some of them
are decent folks just trying to do what they think is the
best for the net at large. I reserve the right to err in at
most one of 13 cases.
Only one of out 13 times? Your brave. <grins>
13 IESG members. Otherwise my error ratio is unfortunately too
high for such bets. And I was optimistic, for six names on the
roster I have no idea who they are.
Only time will tell.
Yes, enough rope to hang himself. now let's see what happens.
* Sympatico.ca, the largest ISP in Canada has published an
SPFv1 record ending in ?all, following the lead set by AOL.
Fine. Gmx.de, AFAIK the largest German e-mail provider, has
-all. Claranet.de, a small German ISP, has -all. Tiscali.de
had -all before claranet.de. Ebay.com has ~all (softfail).
Hotmail.com, msn.com, rr.com, and w3.org have ~all. Gmane.org
has -all. Some do, others don't. Did I mention that I want a
stable "proposed standard" for this beast ? I used to do this
weekly for about one year now here, maybe I'm getting sloppy ;-)
For now can you and I agree to disagree?
Sure. I only wanted it on record that any "IESG conspiracy" is
so far bad science fiction. They even managed to publish the
DEA list <http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/dea-directorate.html>
Bye, Frank