In <200508281126.46506@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This is an important point; the SPF-classic draft was announced to the > ietf-822 and ietf-smtp mailing lists where there was some discussion on > that very point. While the ID-tracker state indicated intended status of > Experimental, the author stated that he was "very reluctant to debate" > issues of controversy with the technical specification, and that his goal > was to "document a de-facto standard" [his words]. What I said both times I submitted the spf-classic I-D for review by various IETF mailing lists was, in full: I realize that the whole subject of SPF (and similar systems) has a certain amount of controversy to it, but for the purposes of this draft, I am very reluctant to try debate these issues. The goal is to document a de-facto standard. Debates about better techniques, why SPF is evil, etc. are probably best discussed on things like the IRTF ASRG list, SPAM-L, the NANAE newsgroup, or on spf-discuss on a separate thread/subject. (See http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg01404.html and http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg01870.html) There were quite a few technical errors that were corrected because of the reviews in ietf-822, ietf-smtp and the dnsext lists. I even made an editorial change to the draft because Bruce didn't think that one RECOMMENDED item applied to only those domain owners that chose to participate in SPF. My intent was to simply not cause the various mailing lists to be flooded with off-topic discussions, especially those that have had a history of never being resolved. -wayne _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf