On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 08:39:36AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill wrote:
>
> >
> > the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the question is
> > "is the rate of adoption
> > of type 99 -changing- in relation to type 16?
>
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 08:39:36AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the question
> is
> > > "is the rate of adoption
> >
Hector Santos wrote:
>Hector Santos wrote:
>> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> Putting a statement in an RFC does not mean that the world will
>>> automatically advance towards that particular end state.
>>
>> Thats correct. No one is forced to support RFC 4408bis. From my
>> perspective, ther
Hector Santos wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Putting a statement in an RFC does not mean that the world will
automatically advance towards that particular end state.
Thats correct. No one is forced to support RFC 4408bis. From my
perspective, there are four basic major changes to BIS - a
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill wrote:
the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the question is
"is the rate of adoption
of type 99 -changing- in relation to type 16?
As John pointed out, support for checking type 99 has dec
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, manning bill wrote:
>
> the question is not that "nobody" checks type 99, the question is
> "is the rate of adoption
> of type 99 -changing- in relation to type 16?
>
As John pointed out, support for checking type 99 has decreased and
continues to
On 23August2013Friday, at 11:04, John Levine wrote:
Nobody has argued that SPF usage is zero, and the reasons for
deprecating SPF have been described repeatedly here and on the ietf
list, so this exercise seems fairly pointless.
>>>
>>> the reasons for not deprecating SPF have
