IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 5F23621F84E6 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 5B2nWkgvupvA for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD2C21F84D9 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id 1F3B1j0010as01C01F3Bxu; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:03:11 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=RaES+iRv c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=w0_tcEhzsP4A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=MY9gt07EUMIXn2KaM3YA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:03:11 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
Thread-Index: AQHNIMqwFmLLWp0VJEuOTXJcBTjdz5anzRGA//+OihCAAHiZAP//5Qzw
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:03:10 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FECB6@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com> <27817694.IMgqELHbEC@scott-latitude-e6320> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FEA8F@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <3850142.Cln9WJldGb@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <3850142.Cln9WJldGb@scott-latitude-e6320>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1335150191; bh=EBomImG+cvpeWH6vkyEljtb6+8ZvVmyiKoHinoPu2VY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=ds6qVwJqHT4rQ28tbAIM7IphRiy186LaTSIrtX/hXhluSEC8U4KoYrY/2L1sT3kCo qrzHNfZ+AJzC0fWel9BV7T+PVdJQU6TKO6Bctejbyq/s/nz6Z0chui0WylCSPi/Jhy ibjmIiZ+aJ0dhIUpVtIfu93NaTE3yCKkHobbDc/U=
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:03:12 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 2:38 PM
> To: spfbis@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
> 
> > Is it necessary to be that precise in this document's context?
> 
> It was an important enough issue at the time that IESG [1] and IAB [2]
> appeals on the practice were filed.  I think pretending that this was
> an even handed data reuse issue is flat out wrong.  In short, on this
> issue, yes.

How does it further frame or resolve the investigation into which one has enjoyed more uptake than the other?  At this point, that's the filter it appears we should be using.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email