In <200606220923(_dot_)01929(_dot_)julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
(I s/the the/to the/-ed.)
Thanks.
I am also concerned that the "Confidential" option *just* adds the
following note before sending it off:
| Confidential! Please do not discuss this issue publicly without
| anonymizing sensitive information!
Depending on the Topic, it may be sent to either spf-council (which
will require a moderator to deal with), spf-webmaster (which may be
posted automatically, I'm not sure), or the SPF RT system (which I
think is also automatically handed off to all people how have
volunteered to handle support requests.
The "The SPF website" topic goes to spf-webmasters and the "Other" topic
goes to spf-council. Both require moderation, so no private messages will
be made public without manual intervention.
Ok, I'm glad to know that before going to any mailing list, the
request will be filtered by a moderator.
However, the thing that bothers me is that we talk about not
disclosing "this issue", but instead we anonymize the personal/company
information and go ahead and discuss the issue.
We should either do what we say, or say what we do.
Personally, I'm leaning toward being much more explict about what
parts of the message will be kept confidential and making it clear
that the topic will be seen/reviewed by many people.
I'm raising this issue here on SPF-discuss because I think this is
something that the entire SPF community should decide, or at least be
aware of.
Also, the http://new.openspf.org/auth/Support page directs people to
the Contact page with the text:
You can submit a question to our volunteer help team and they will
get back to you as quickly as they can. In general, there are more
people available to help on the spf-help mailing list (see above),
so if you need a quick answer, that's a better, but more public
avenue.
This seems to imply more confidentiality than what is currently given.
But then there's still the confidentiality selector where submitters must
_explicitly_ choose. (Besides, I don't think that Mark Wolk came via the
"Support" page when he wanted to report a bug in GMANE.)
I think the confidentiality selector is great, I'm just trying to say
that we need to be more consistent and clearer with what we do.
-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