trusted-forwarders.org (was: Obivous forged email reply with bad SPF info... Here is a header...)

Alessandro Vesely wrote:

> note that googling for `site:trusted-forwarders.org spf' yields
> no results. That domain name has expired, so it is probably not
> a good idea to include it in spf records, for the time being...

Oops.  I propose to send that info to SPF ANNOUNCE, and put it on
the main page as "news".

 Frank

Last erratum

Please check out <http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata>, the edit
history claims "consensus that impossible labels are no TempError":

| Be aware that if the domain owner uses macros (Section 8), it is possible
| that this result is due to the checked identities having an unexpected
| format.
|
| Please note that an unexpected <target-name> can be also handled as no match,
| ideally implementations document how they handle such issues. The outcome
| for an unexpected <domain-spec> before macro expansion might differ from the
| outcome for an unexpected <target-name> after macro expansion.

 Frank

Note Well

For info, I've added links to <http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html>
and <https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi> on the
<http://www.openspf.org/Forums> page next to the "SPF Discuss"
entry, replacing the old "high traffic" indication.

 Frank

support problem

Hi,

Not much has happened in the past months but now a change will happen
one way or the other.

As you are probably well aware, the volunteer team is often not much
more than just me myself and I. And I am going to quit as well.

I think the council should decide how to continue with support, but
of course I will not participate as a council member in that discussion.

There are too much posts to the RT system which fall in one or more
of the following categories:

* a duplicate of a post to spf-help
* a disgruntled person wishing to vent his/her anger
* a lazy person which just copies the message and demands an explanation
* spam

Sorry, but I cannot cope with this anymore.

I see three possible scenarios:

1: forget about RT (or alike) and let people post to spf-help
2: continue with RT (or alike) but with different people. If this is the
   way to go, ensure that a backlog of +2weeks does not occur anymore
3: let me continue but for a small fee to set my mind at ease.

Let me explain #3: I think this will overcome many of the problems I
encounter.  For all four categories I mentioned I can live with it if

Old business

Hi,

I've recently forwarded the old question about the IETF list of
"other lists" to the IPR WG again.

See <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/4911>
and <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5026>
for the results.  Does that help with your concerns ?

IIRC Julian was already satisfied before, if somebody else
agrees and nobody disagrees I'd take it as "go".

 Frank

-------------------------------------------
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

spf2.0/mfrom and HELO (was: FTC Spam Summit)

Only Warning: Users with misbehaving auto-responders will be kicked off the SPF mailing lists

Dear subscribers to the SPF mailing lists,

as the list moderators have been plagued for years now by automatic replies 
sent by the auto-responders of inconsiderate subscribers, these mailing 
lists' policy on the tolerance of such auto-replies is about to change, 
effective immediately.

Auto-responders sending automatic messages (such as vacation messages) in 
reply to mailing list messages (be they directed to the message's author 
or, worse, to the entire mailing list) constitute rude and anti-social 
behavior, as they harass the list's subscribers, or even pollute the list, 
with irrelevant information.  From now on, if your auto-responder gets 
caught sending auto-replies to postings on the SPF mailing lists, your 
subscription will be deactivated until it has been demonstrably fixed.

This is your only warning.

Such mailing list postings can be recognized from a "Precedence: bulk",
"Precedence: list", or some "List-ID:" header.  If you haven't already, go 
teach your auto-responders.

The most prominent example of such misbehaving auto-responders has a
"X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5" header field.  Be advised 
that Exchange's auto-responder not being easily fixable is not an accep- 
table excuse.

Julian.

The next meeting after 2007-04-21

Hi all,

I apologize for not having managed to set up a council meeting for a while 
now.  (I've been pretty much occupied with paid work and exams.  Real life 
should be a bit easier on me for the next few months, though.)

Let's try to get a meeting going within the coming weeks, shall we?

I have yet to contact the IETF dnsop WG chairs, Paul Vixie, et al. about 
the "bogus TLD root server queries" issue, so there's nothing to report 
from that front.

There are a few other things that require our attention, though (I may be 
missing some, so please bring up stuff I forgot):

  * Submit spf-discuss to the "others" list?  ("note well" thread)
  * Status of the support team?  Measures to undertake?
  * More potential RFC 4408 errata[1], plus the "RFC 2181 5/1" issue
  * The RFC 4408 compliance logo: license terms, etc.
  * Examine project status and update the project agenda[2]
  * Prospects for SPFv3?

(Not all of these items need to be addressed immediately, but all of them 
should be sooner or later.)

I could meet as soon as Sunday 2007-06-24, or the following weekend (or 
some other day (not ANY, though) during the week, but I assume weekends 
are still best for most of us).

Julian.

References:
 1. http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata
 2. http://www.openspf.org/Project_Agenda

Fwd: Activity Report for spf-deployment

Hi all,

we just lost GMANE association of spf-deployment again.  Does anyone know 
whether that was intentional?

Julian.

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
Subject: Activity Report for spf-deployment
Date: Wednesday, 2007 June 13 15:33
From: listbox+reports <at> v2.listbox.com
To: julian <at> mehnle.net

In the last 7 days,

  New Subscribers: 0

  Voluntary Unsubscriptions: 1
    ngomssd-spf-deployment-1 <at> m.gmane.org (Gmane Administrator)

  Unsubscriptions due to Bouncing: 0
  Total number of subscribers: 538

To review your subscriber list, please visit
http://v2.listbox.com/login/subscriber-list.html

Cheers
The Listbox Robot

Meeting 06-02

Hi, how about a meeting 2007-06-02 ?

Administrivia, Reply-To spf-discuss didn't work
here, I've reset the old Reply-To list, sorry:
<http://mid.gmane.org/4650ABED.3E2D <at> xyzzy.claranet.de>

Frank

-------------------------------------------
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Welcome to spf-council

You have been subscribed to spf-council with the address

  ngomssc-spf-council-1 <at> m.gmane.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          List Instructions

To unsubscribe (leave the list):

    http://v2.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?id=6959930-474264b8-udqma6gj

To change your subscription settings:

    http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=6959930&user_secret=474264b8

At that page, you can

 1) change your subscribed email address
 2) temporarily suspend list messages
 3) view list archives (if available)
 4) update other account settings

To avoid messages from spf-council getting blocked by your spam filters
in the future, please add owner-spf-council <at> v2.listbox.com to your Address Book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------