IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

wayne <wayne@schlitt.net> Fri, 09 December 2005 19:15 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 1EkniC-0006fd-5K; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:15:20 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ekni9-0006bd-73 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:15:17 -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 OAA17442 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:14:22 -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 1EkniM-0007qa-S7 for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:15:32 -0500
Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Eknej-0000x3-9N for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:11:45 +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>; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:11:45 +0100
Received: from wayne by footbone.schlitt.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:11:45 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: wayne <wayne@schlitt.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:04:00 -0600
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <x44q5inlcv.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net>
References: <200512081104.09113.julian@mehnle.net> <4398AE3D.512D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512090838400.13902@netcore.fi> <4399C0C6.48EB@xyzzy.claranet.de>
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:YIQx4uXEmoOFxPv23A+bsIdFtow=
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2
Cc: spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
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 <4399C0C6.48EB@xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> writes:

> Result of this experiment (last state that I've heard of):
> Absolutely nobody evaluates "spf2.0/pra".

fyi;

There have been a couple of people who have run stats on the usage of
spf2.0/pra vs SPF.  It *is* being used, but no where near as much as
SPF.


-wayne


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email