IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Updated charter - final review

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Wed, 01 February 2012 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C59B21F8513 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 04:08:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 kuYsOyrHQrNa for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 04:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD7C21F84E2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 04:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75FAD0408B; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:07:58 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1328098079; bh=MyL+oGCEFfqhIN82gZzC18QHcW5+jsQog/XJwE4K7+w=; h=References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Subject:From:Date:To:Message-ID; b=fQdgV1ctG11D1Ttx3zRNcLdv8IsvQ89uy1VGhHyNB4Hh5ynmeZX8A3sUz8aKBAkKE fqjJkSo1pvR1UpvYhUowVTzMwAP9xT10sHsJ/B+dGq86LjASSDhdBxzX0gQCglN9xX oHCzUk/KrNea9brBgOPHYYZrWX5Pw4oNUQbjcXSY=
Received: from [192.168.111.101] (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A70E1D0400D; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:07:58 -0600 (CST)
References: <4F28DBB7.5070101@qualcomm.com> <4F292787.5040109@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <4F292787.5040109@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:08:08 -0500
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <18eefd51-d3d1-4db6-92bb-5ebf37cbe516@email.android.com>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Updated charter - final review
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:08:00 -0000

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:

>
>
>On 2/1/2012 1:29 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> addition of any enhancements
>>      that have already gained widespread support,
>
>
>What additions are being proposed and considered?
>
>This clause broadens the scope significantly.

FWIW, I'm not aware of anything that would currently meet that criteria and the only thing that might in the time frame we're discussing is the SPF failure  feedback report going on in MARF.

If this language lets us transition the SPF modifier registry into 4408bis, then it's probably useful.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email