Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informational

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

 



In <20051209221401.9125.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxx> writes:

>> I cannot find any evidence from RFC 2026 that there is any such
>> thing as an "IETF experiment" or "IETF-sanctioned experiment".
>
> Me neither.  Since neither the SPF nor the Sender-ID crowds appear to
> have any interest in modifying their specs, that doesn't sound like an
> experiment to me, IETF or otherwise.

Well, I dunno.  I solicited comments on the SPF draft on several IETF
mailing lists a couple of times and made changes based on those
comments.

What exactly do you think needs to be changed with the SPF draft?


-wayne


_______________________________________________

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]