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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Since all these 'failures' are simply known properties of the PRA check
> there is absolutely no value in changing the version string.

Of course there is.  The fact alone that S-ID has different "failure 
modes" than SPF does, justifies a clear separation between those two 
"experiments".

> The PRA implementations are certainly not going to follow this advice if
> it is made. All that the IESG would achieve is to further confuse and
> complicate deployment of SPF/Sender-ID by giving advice that is
> ill-founded. 
>
> Only the receiver of an email has any right to decide how their spam
> filter is going to work. The purpose of SPF is to provide the sender a
> mechanism that helps them to pursuade the recipient to receive the
> email message.

Please be aware that your personal view of what is the purpose of SPF is 
far from authoritative.

Furthermore, this is _not_ about policing receivers on how they filter 
their incoming mail.  This is about the IETF publishing conflicting 
specifications.  (Yes, I am aware that _you_ don't see any conflict.  
That however is besides the point of this paragraph.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDD3I6wL7PKlBZWjsRAjOXAJ0avZnTdmcG1Twf93R1pGEzZ+kRYgCg9pNZ
aEjFiOdeBBv9SEIHaZ3jpq8=
=iMMZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]