Hector Santos wrote:
s/80/20/ 100 - 80 = 20. Need more coffee, sorry. Do you
need some pointers like Ned's article on the general list ?
Or Keith's old "this was an error" article ?
These were three completely unrelated points: You said that
any assumption of PRA = MAIL FROM works only for 80% of the
mails you see. End of first point, quoted authority = you.
Ned supported Julian's appeal on the general list. End of
second point. And Keith said somewhere that approving one
draft saying "x is NOT RECOOMENDED" together with another
draft saying "SHOULD do x" was an error (or similar), end of
third point.
I told you the last time and I rephrase it again,
Rest assured that I don't consider you as my buddy, I have no
wish to kiss you or anybody else in the IETF, and TTBOMK Keith
doesn't like SPF, to put it very mildly. And that's also the
reason why such opinions might help, nobody could dispute their
critical "neutral POV".
Rest of your completely beside the point rant skipped, I'm not
at all interested in your flamewars, insults, and ad hominems.
If you wanted to say that your old 80% statement was incorrect
and Julian shouldn't mention it in his appeal better try again.
-------
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