Re: Trying to specify SPF Classic?
"william(at)elan.net" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss,gmane.ietf.mxcomp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Meng Weng Wong wrote: > I have proposed to the IETF AD and co-chairs that we publish > an Experimental RFC to document SPF Classic, and also > publish Experimental RFCs for Sender ID to make Microsoft > happy, and also publish Experiemental RFCs that head in the > direction of Unified SPF. SenderID (PRA) and UnifiedSPF based on SPF 2.0, we're not quite ready with that draft, I'd like more discussion on scoping and making it more compatible with SPF 1.0. So I would recommend publishing Classic SPF1.0 draft to RFC now and wait a little more with SPF2.0 and do more discussions both on protocol and on other aspects Unified SPF. When we're ready with all other Unified SPF drafts (that means we have published them and discussed and tried the concept and have implementations available) then we can ask for publiication of SPF2.0 protocol and all related unified SPF drafts to Experimental RFCs. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [email protected]