-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Newton wrote:
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Andrew Newton wrote:
If this is the source of the conflict, then BOTH experiments should
not use the v=spf1 records.
The stated goal of draft-schlitt-spf-classic is to document SPF,
basically as it was before the IETF got involved. Yes, the IETF is
calling it an experiment, which I don't agree with. It is
documenting an existing, well established, protocol.
Are you saying that the IETF shouldn't publish an RFC that documents
SPF?
I stated that the SPF and Sender ID experiments should not use the
v=spf1 records to avoid conflict. [...]
I does not make sense in any practical way whatsoever to make SPFv1 not
use "v=spf1" records. The fact that the IESG chose to perceive SPF as an
experiment doesn't change that, either.
I know that there are many people who would like to eradicate SPF from
history for a variety of reasons, but (a) it just cannot be done, and (b)
many other people, me included, would consider it a gross waste, because
it is evidently far from useless (even if a successor specification might
be desirable, or if other protocols are also not useless).
Please also remember that nobody is asking for Sender ID not to make use
of "v=spf1" records _at_all_. The appeal is about Sender ID using them
for PRA checking, so please be careful when wording statements like the
above.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDD5N/wL7PKlBZWjsRAhO3AJwLjjOYmSmfsWeyvKOFfkphLZ347wCZAXfJ
5w2QFFDT7lWKI/dpAQkb7u4=
=cxJI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com