IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 09 August 2011 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E50C21F86C4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 03:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LtyCdNNCdyhv for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 03:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9216D21F8B21 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 03:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1312887483; bh=PdmVZMI8IG1twG/Hp0b33kiulnde8EwngUMIxs1DWnI=; l=625; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=gZ7qrEl54ay5ZvpnA64kUHfp9OHh6Jbl4hWknFEdqMlO2XYsTn6wk2LGNS/w3btyn gwmGRc7RLsNB6rUZow+YTgn4/SPMG9l4zvwL918ytjUYGC2+qcb6qVLnBHBdq/Rl9G jr7E9BIuANJgufO/wG3cylLA8T9RqCgiZdav0tek=
Received: from [109.113.130.53] ([109.113.130.53]) (AUTH: PLAIN 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:58:02 +0200 id 00000000005DC033.000000004E4112BA.0000082F
Message-ID: <4E4112B4.7000905@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:57:56 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <AcxV+CxT9WxP2wTLTNWpQ3LXOor+nw==> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF606@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVCncUmdM+g8c+tTBGMnXHtL5+5hGwNF7+n14sDbBst8WQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCncUmdM+g8c+tTBGMnXHtL5+5hGwNF7+n14sDbBst8WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:57:37 -0000

On 08.08.2011 22:02, Barry Leiba wrote:
> 
> I believe this absolutely needs its own WG, and the proponents should
> work on a draft charter.  The charter should be clear that it's aiming
> to move SPF to Standards Track, that it is specifically NOT addressing
> Sender-ID, and that any merging of Sender-ID into SPF is out of scope.
>  The charter should have explanatory text about the experiment having
> been done, the results being clear, and deployment being widespread.
> The WG wants, it should say, to document the experimental results and
> shift SPF onto Standards Track.

+1, this is a Good Thing to do!

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status