wayne wrote:
At the rate things are going, it will be another 10-20 years
before there is a "standard" level replacement for the now 15
year old email RFCs (RFC821 and RFC822).
Apparently you're free to send an "implementation report" about
say RFC 2822 to the IESG, asking them to promote it to DS. As
long as nobody does this it won't happen.
There are a few minor issues with RFC 2822, the NO-WS-CTL in
header fields and especially Message-ID is rather dubious, but
in essence it's an excellent document. One pending erratum,
no big deal. Go for it, let's check it out, I'd take the part
of the "opposition".
Replacing RFC 821 by a working SMTP document is a completely
different issue for obvious reasons.
it will be a minimum of 2 years because the IAB (part of the
IETF) said so.
IESG. Not the job of the IAB.
There isn't even an experiemental RFC for DNSBLs.
One I-D written by JohnL is lost somewhere, the new editor or
shepherd had no time, I forgot the details, check it out on
the ASRG list. The main principle is that nothing happens
unless somebody does it, and so far it's fair. E.g. "we" are
perfectly free to create 2821bis pieces, and if we'd do it
the USE SPF OR FORGET E-MAIL between the lines would be clear.
the W3C broke off from the IETF because too many people were
upset that HTTP was replacing the "technically better" gopher
I've never heard that one, but it sounds funny... :-) RFC 2270
was as an IETF document, there were probably other problems at
this time, the browser wars and what else.
The SPF RFC *was* improved by going through the IETF process
Not as much as possible without a real Last Call.
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