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:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:49:55 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net>
Subject: Re: Additional appeal against publication of draft-lyon-senderid-* in
regards to its recommended use of Resent- header fields in the way that is
inconsistant with RFC2822
[snip!]
"The community is invited to observe the success or failure of the two
approaches during the two years following publication, in order that a
community consensus can be reached in the future."
Ok, so we are supposed to watch to see how things work over the next
two years, but...
"Participants in the Sender-ID experiment need to be aware
that the way Resent-* header fields are used will result in
failure to receive legitimate email when interacting with
standards-compliant systems (specifically automatic forwarders
which comply with the standards by not adding Resent-* headers,
and systems which comply with RFC 822 but have not yet implemented
RFC 2822 Resent-* semantics). It would be inappropriate to advance
Sender-ID on the standards track without resolving this
interoperability problem."
... we know that the experiment is invalid from the start because the
PRA has to be changed, which will change the results.
So, why is the IETF doing this experiment at all?
-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