(The IETF is often criticised for having inadequate efforts concerning
operations. Here is your opportunity to take a small step to counteract that.)
Folks,
This is a request for you action:
A draft specification has been submitted to the IETF for standardization
as a "Best Current Practices".
Information about the document is at:
<http://mipassoc.org/spamops/>
The document is in the final stages of a public "Last Call" process,
during which the IETF's management Steering Group obtains input about
interest in the document and hears about possible problems with it.
This document did not get developed within the IETF. So there is no
record of community interest.
Consequently it is particularly important to have active postings from
the broad Internet community, expressing their assessment of the
document, notably including any plans to implement the specifications.
This document is a limited, first-step in specifying voluntary standards
for service providers, in their cross-net email operations.
Please send your comments to:
Thanks.
d/
A draft specification has been submitted to the IETF for standardization
as a "Best Current Practices".
Information about the document is at:
<http://mipassoc.org/spamops/>
The name is inaccurate, its not about anti-spam operations, the document
is about use and configuration of email submission service on the Internet.
The document is in the final stages of a public "Last Call" process,
Which so far it is failing miserably on the security and other grounds,
see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/index.html
archive for last 7 days
during which the IETF's management Steering Group obtains input about
interest in the document and hears about possible problems with it.
FYI - It appears security reviewers do not like CRAM-MD5 being promoted by
by this draft as way to authenticate SMTP for submission. There are some
other problems that have been noted and perhaps NANOG operations people will find something else that would be of interest to hear.
This document did not get developed within the IETF. So there is no
record of community interest.
That some document is not developed in IETF, does not mean there is
no record of community interest.
(The IETF is often criticised for having inadequate efforts concerning
operations.
no. inadequate ops clue and sometimes overly eager/encroaching ops
efforts. perhaps this is an example?
randy
no. inadequate ops clue and sometimes overly eager/encroaching ops
efforts. perhaps this is an example?
and perhaps it isn't.
but thanks for such a constructive contribution.
d/