Julian Mehnle wrote:
Generally all council business is supposed to be public.
Yes, but as we know there are cases where that's a bit tricky.
If SPF-private isn't the solution maybe you need something
like council AT openspf.org for "official" + "private" mails.
Unauthorized quoting can easily be substituted by
paraphrasing.
Maybe s/easily// for the "what", and s/easily/not really/ for
the "who". There are a few "important" folks in the IETF, if
you care to define importance by "number of BCPs written" or
similar. Of course "they" wouldn't like that definition, and
"they" want everybody to do what "they" already did, publish
new and good drafts and RfCs.
Only if the content is competitive or its release otherwise
strategically counterproductive
There should be no "competition" about v=spf1, it's a standard,
not a "product", and as you said the only viable "strategy" is
based on openness. But discussing private mails in public is
a NoNo (excluding cartooneys or harassing mails of course).
Bye, Frank
-------
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