On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:57:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.18.html#subj10
I have reason to believe that Steven Bellovin's criticisms are being taken
seriously -- it's possible that future SPF drafts will have addressed
all of his concerns.
That said, I think
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 03:36:08PM -0500, david nicol wrote:
> We could demand SPF listing or c/r, until junk all has SPF.
I'm strongly opposed to SPF, mainly because the technical details
are insane. See for example what I said in RISKS:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.18.html#subj10
Ian.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes ("Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge"):
> I don't think the ctte should be recommending how to vote. [...]
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge"):
> I agree with the first part of this. [...]
> I strongly feel we should not b
3 matches
Mail list logo
