IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 24 April 2012 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 63F7A21F8681 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xdyovqZzyXhn for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F2921F85ED for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1335282398; bh=pZduk7AVsH/chXwcecbOvjbD9tZf+GaIUs6s+HbbR0c=; l=653; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=fLXsLleY1MCN/6bG0p9+Zheap6EO82VZ5oiDdHxQXTZf9k3b+EA44Wa8ON6Ni/Fcq Ml4IKXfUmSWMSf+6n2BTbYQ/5tp6qTWSjqZNgalYhhejMWTYGxC/arYYR476pfgPYg qQGLuoIoBkZX7S4EHnVuK0GRAw0okVhfKG6JINqc=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:46:38 +0200 id 00000000005DC048.000000004F96CADE.000053C4
Message-ID: <4F96CADD.5010000@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:46:37 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com> <16903045.7Ta8mtnNKj@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FED45@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <2738361.74YB1Lktta@scott-latitude-e6320> <20120423142646.GE55520@mail.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20120423142646.GE55520@mail.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:46:41 -0000

On Tue 24/Apr/2012 17:39:50 +0200 Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
> Quite frankly, if we had to do an evaluation of this as an experiment,
> we would have to criticise the experimental design in many ways, and
> the accidental pollution of the sample base is the least of the
> problems.  But that's not what we're trying to do.

Discussing the experimental setup is not our main task.  However, I
think that if we have precise critics to make we should go ahead,
especially if our experience could be useful for other experiments.
For example, we could answer why it took so many more years than
anticipated in order to reach a community consensus.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email