Andrew Newton wrote: > I stated that the SPF and Sender ID experiments should not > use the v=spf1 records to avoid conflict. Yes, you are a prominent part of this "embrace and extend" strategy also known as "steal or destroy". > if you (the author of the document) do not consider this to > be an experiment, then perhaps the IETF should not publish > SPF as an Experimental RFC. Perhaps the IETF should choose its leadership more carefully. It didn't work, this trick to get rid of the critical "NOT RECOMMENDED" in draft-schlitt by a note to the RfC editor. It didn't work, this trick to close MARID when it was clear that abusing v=spf1 for PRA is a non-starter. Hopefully it also won't work by the infamous "SHOULD abuse v=spf1" in senderid-core-01. The persons listed on... http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/dea-directorate.html as well as all "no objections" on http://tinyurl.com/ayaun will have a hard time to redeem themselves in my eyes, and so far only one managed this. When Keith said here that all this was only an error, not intentional, I fear that isn't the case for some of these persons. No paseran _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf