On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Matthew(_dot_)van(_dot_)Eerde(_at_)hbinc(_dot_)com wrote:
Minor oopsie:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4408.txt
"aParticipants publishing SPF experiment DNS records should consider"
That's in the IESG note section, over which we had no control anyway.
I also see they included the one Sender-ID-only note (about the "Resent-*
header fields") in the SPF RFC. At first, I thought, "how stupid!",
They intended to do it eventhough I complained and said its inappropriate.
but then I recognized that note might actually serve to invite people to
trust the SPF spec when it says that "checking other [non-envelope]
identities against SPF version 1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED because
there are cases that are known to give incorrect results".
Ever thought of why IESG note always goes in the beginning of RFC and not
in the end? That's right - everyone reads at least the abstract and
introduction (and maybe few additional pages) but only few read all the
RFC text and notice every detail.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
-------
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