spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

2005-08-26 19:23:09
Andrew Newton wrote:

I stated that the SPF and Sender ID experiments should not
use the v=spf1 records to avoid conflict.

Yes, you are a prominent part of this "embrace and extend"
strategy also known as "steal or destroy".

if you (the author of the document) do not consider this to
be an experiment, then perhaps the IETF should not publish
SPF as an Experimental RFC.

Perhaps the IETF should choose its leadership more carefully.

It didn't work, this trick to get rid of the critical "NOT
RECOMMENDED" in draft-schlitt by a note to the RfC editor.

It didn't work, this trick to close MARID when it was clear
that abusing v=spf1 for PRA is a non-starter.

Hopefully it also won't work by the infamous "SHOULD abuse
v=spf1" in senderid-core-01.

The persons listed on...
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/dea-directorate.html
as well as all "no objections" on http://tinyurl.com/ayaun
will have a hard time to redeem themselves in my eyes, and
so far only one managed this.

When Keith said here that all this was only an error, not
intentional, I fear that isn't the case for some of these
persons.
                         No paseran


-------
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

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