spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF 2/3 maybe it is time to get this going.

2005-06-18 11:05:01
wayne wrote:

I think the result is *MUCH* clearer, more complete,
and more accurate.

+1 

For one minor exception see a rececent spf-help problem: 
<http://mid.gmane.org/42B332ED(_dot_)574C(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>

I think they have given the "two year experimentation
time" as a stalling tactic

s/they/Mr. Hardie/ or s/they/Redmond's IESG liaisons/ ?

One major opportunity to find some final nits would be
a proper "IETF last call" instead of the "experimental"
bullshit.   It's a very bad thing if folks like Bruce
or Keith were never really forced to check all details.

I think we need to finish what we have started and not
lose focus.

+1

There are many things to be done with the spec. as is:

E.g. update some old implementations against the new
test suite.  If you don't have tools to create a test
suite directly from the grammar and do it manually I'm
interested to help (gawk or at least in theory).

E.g. discuss relevant features starting with Scott's
evergreen HARDPASS op=auth or Williams's "match" stuff.

E.g. grab some SRS and VARA ideas to update the long
expired draft-mengwong-sender-rewrite-01.txt

E.g. anything related to the new Web page.  If there
are pages where the W3C or WDG validators say "FAIL"
(excl. CSS) I could interpret the error messages and
fix it, for a trivial example see:

<http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/spf-council.htm>

E.g. update William's emailredirection-traceheaders
draft.  Do something with Dave's email-arch draft -
from my POV Bruce filed "too many [discuss]" and so
I lost track at email-arch-04 waiting for -05.

E.g. help Carl's spamops through the IETF process
with any relevant improvement proposed by Keith, but
without losing it in any irrelevant flamewars.

I think getting SPFv1 widely deployed is much more
important than creating an SPF version 2 or 3.

+1
--
+3 total                  Bye, Frank



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