IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Concluding the SPF and Sender ID experiments

Jim Fenton <fenton@Cisco.COM> Thu, 26 February 2009 06:50 UTC

Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n1Q6osxM024926 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:50:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id n1Q6osVE024925; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:50:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n1Q6ohqX024909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:50:53 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from fenton@cisco.com)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,269,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="147620996"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Feb 2009 06:50:30 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1Q6oUMS021494; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:50:30 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1Q6oUAB013985; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:50:30 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:50:30 -0800
Received: from stealth-10-32-251-4.cisco.com ([10.32.251.4]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:50:29 -0800
Message-ID: <49A63BB5.3030000@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:50:29 -0800
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@Cisco.COM>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
CC: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: Concluding the SPF and Sender ID experiments
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20090225151135.02d1a2b8@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090225151135.02d1a2b8@elandnews.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2009 06:50:29.0939 (UTC) FILETIME=[835FB030:01C997DE]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=746; t=1235631030; x=1236495030; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fenton@cisco.com; z=From:=20Jim=20Fenton=20<fenton@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Concluding=20the=20SPF=20and=20Sender=2 0ID=20experiments |Sender:=20; bh=YxXo4Kdb0j4cIIoOGcqkGjMvPG9TEAyO8U+Pr1S9j1Q=; b=ijNFBkvPGsljgeGJ//6Cc/8gdcnQv5F528SMQZzeRVua1r2TjpLqWfS++j jYAOm5XzhaHdH45uQEBb9piqzjCE6BaqtCXd+YAgHDh3giIK+//I2lrVzWhD KANSaeWT6Y;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fenton@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

SM,

I gather the draft you're referring to is
draft-moonesamy-senderid-spf-historic-00, which expired 6 months or so
ago.  You might consider issuing a -01 if you want to keep the issue active.

-Jim

SM wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> There is currently an I-D with a proposal to conclude the Sender ID
> and SPF experiments.  If anyone is interested in these Experimental
> RFCs, I suggest that they work on an update and post it as an I-D. 
> That could help to put a stop to the Sender ID and SPF discussions
> that point to problems when running both experiments concurrently.
>
> If you have any comments about why these Experimental RFCs should not
> be moved to historic, I would like to hear them.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email