Re: Language too strict in draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom-00

On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 10:27:47PM +0200,
 Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> wrote 
 a message of 29 lines which said:

> But I'd never remove or change a -all, there are better options.

Do what you want. My idea was not to constrain you but to free the
others :-)

> SPF without -all is a complete waste of bandwidth and time.

With ?all, you never have FAIL but you still have the PASS, which are
important for my whitelists.

If -all becomes mandatory, I will certainly *not* deploy SPF. I do not
want my "~/.forward" to break suddenly (and if you say that I should
switch from forwarding to remailing right now, I would reply they have
different semantics, specially when the mail cannot be
delivered. Without any real deployment of SRS or BATV - which are only
proofs of concept at this time - I will *not* use -all.)

The rest is a bit off-topic:

> [some remarks about RfC 3865 censored, because this would cost me
> the write access to MARID].

I cannot speak for the MARID Police but, since RFC 3865 "A No
Soliciting Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension"
talks about a related issue, informed opinions on RFC 3685 may be
useful to MARID, specially if you talk about how it combines with
MARID.