In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0512080338550(_dot_)19913(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
I also received the answer to my appeal. IESG basicly agrees that use
of Resent fields is not compatible with standards but considers that
is not enough to not publish the draft for EXPERIMENTAL status and
instead chooses to add [yet another] note about it:
This is good news, I guess. SenderID can't be made a standard without
critical changes to the PRA.
On the downside, the IESG seems to think that this warning about
SenderID belongs in the SPF spec, which will probably just confuse the
issue between SPF and SenderID some more.
*sigh*
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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