On 08/23/2013 04:34 PM, John Levine wrote:
I don't know of any (at least ones that are used in the global dns
namespace), and I would like to still not know of any in 2033.
Since we agree that the issue you're worried about has not arisen even
once in the past decade, could you clarify
On 08/26/2013 04:08 PM, John R Levine wrote:
Could you point to anyone, anywhere, who has ever said that the odd
history of the SPF TXT record means that it is perfectly fine to do
something similar in the future?
Three of the four points on the list that triggered my first message in
this
On 08/26/2013 04:49 PM, John R Levine wrote:
Sorry if that last one came across as dismissive.
Until such time, I'd personally prefer to see some explicit notion that
the odd history of the SPF TXT record should not be seen as a precedent
and best practice, rather than hope that this is
On 08/26/2013 04:55 PM, Jelte Jansen wrote:
I'd have thought that the debate here and elsewhere already documented
that. Since it's not specific to SPF, perhaps we could do a draft on
overloaded TXT considered harmful to get it into the RFC record.
That draft may not be a bad idea
On 08/22/2013 07:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
In article 5215cd8d.3080...@sidn.nl you write:
So what makes you think the above 4 points will not be a problem for the
next protocol that comes along and needs (apex) RR data? And the one
after that?
SPF is ten years old now. It would be helpful
On 08/21/2013 08:44 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
Most of the recent arguments against SPF type have come down to the following
(as far as I can tell):
a) I can not add SPF RRtype via my provisioning system into my DNS
servers
b) My firewall doesl not let SPF Records through
On 08/21/2013 03:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Speaking as the SPFBIS co-chair…
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:55:33AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs observations that not all TXT
== SPF). In the mean time, declare a suspension of
last call to gauge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/06/2010 09:06 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
People from Europe, Japan, Australia, and some other countries don't need a
visa at all to go to an IETF meeting in the US. People from China, India and
the other countries are generally backed by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/30/2010 06:53 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
So I can't complain about the get-togethers of any sort, just that there
wasn't enough time for them. I would like to encourage the use of IETF
tools
