IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informational

wayne <wayne@schlitt.net> Sat, 10 December 2005 00:25 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EksY1-0007ON-RD; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:25:09 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EksXy-0007Ln-QB for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:25:07 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09469 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 19:24:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EksY9-0007Hy-Bb for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:25:18 -0500
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1EksWG-0007Os-Rr for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:23:20 +0100
Received: from footbone.schlitt.net ([67.52.51.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:23:20 +0100
Received: from wayne by footbone.schlitt.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:23:20 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: wayne <wayne@schlitt.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:22:10 -0600
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <x4lkytn6ml.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net>
References: <200512092141.NAA00720@gra.isi.edu> <20051209221401.9125.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: footbone.schlitt.net
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) XEmacs/21.4.17 (linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RPAuVD9EkEVECiFXy/DWEoDSH3Q=
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Subject: Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informational
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

In <20051209221401.9125.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes:

>> I cannot find any evidence from RFC 2026 that there is any such
>> thing as an "IETF experiment" or "IETF-sanctioned experiment".
>
> Me neither.  Since neither the SPF nor the Sender-ID crowds appear to
> have any interest in modifying their specs, that doesn't sound like an
> experiment to me, IETF or otherwise.

Well, I dunno.  I solicited comments on the SPF draft on several IETF
mailing lists a couple of times and made changes based on those
comments.

What exactly do you think needs to be changed with the SPF draft?


-wayne


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email