Re: [Asrg] Final statement
David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> Fri, 08 July 2011 16:05 UTC
Return-Path: <davidnicol@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C9821F8B11 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hyler9UDlc5i for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E70921F8B19 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwr19 with SMTP id 19so2484000iwr.13 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=g/omQU7gksfV1hYwqcnMSvVNkzVUOVyeLVnhuKy5QXA=; b=YXUjaeWvrx6EAZGdQMXdul4aiK6ykBEpHi1NfVi/wSF4mjAX3bslzhN6+BjmrO3dev c9AZh4Pg+gk5kOATL1ZN/cD2fCczRjXdm0Rgh2LZIU99JfkRCnel918dra16tLeOEXG1 GvkJhqfvAhj83lHNnVsrHSviofOe8SSIERm3s=
Received: by 10.42.3.144 with SMTP id 16mr1358364ico.284.1310141123092; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.176.5 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110301163411.B094412EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net>
References: <20110301163411.B094412EC69@ca-mirror-1.uceprotect.net>
From: David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:05:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFwScO_Y-hBPXQ-hHRkPSE_JmGnr2MUV5W+UVtgYX8Bua_6+eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>, "Claus v. Wolfhausen" <c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6d369883f5f7d04a791006b"
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Final statement
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:05:25 -0000
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Claus v. Wolfhausen < c.v.wolfhausen@spamkiller.uceprotect.net> wrote: > Really technical important things got a "SHOULD" OR "RECOMMENDED" while a > the content of a policy (if there is a payment option or not) got a "MUST > NOT" > I'm inspired to draft a BCP on BCP interpretation, which would include, but not be limited to "advice in BCP documents MUST NOT be misinterpreted as anything other than opinion" unfortunately the margins of this e-mail are too small ...
- [Asrg] Final statement Claus v. Wolfhausen
- Re: [Asrg] Final statement Matt Sergeant
- Re: [Asrg] Final statement David Nicol