-----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 mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
