scott at kitterman
Jul 7, 2008, 7:43 PM
Post #2 of 3
(266 views)
Permalink
|
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:23:04 +0200 "Frank Ellermann"
<hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi, for info, IIRC some folks here have strong preferences
>wrt example addresses in RFCs and elsewhere. On the SMTP
>list Tony asked:
>
>| John has said to me that he's always been willing to
>| change the non-example domain names to 2606 example
>| domain names.
>
>| Now that the appeal is done and out of the way, do people
>| prefer
>
>| 1) none of the domain names be changed?
>| 2) all domain names be changed, except Jon Postel's isi.edu
>| and usc.edu references
>| 3) all domain names be changed
>
>| I would like to get a quick consensus call for this question.
>| Please respond by Thursday, July 10.
>.........^^^^^^^
>That is "respond to his original message", *NOT* to this info.
>
I pick 4: Don't mutilate any examples that appeared in 2821. For new
examples either reuse domains from existing examples or use domains in
example.* based on what author believes is least confusing.
The notion that contuing to use domain names in 2821bis that have long
appeared in 2821 will cause damage to the internet is nonsense.
Replying here because I'm unwilling to try out the IETF's TMDA system.
Users of challenge/response systems get no mail from me.
Scott K
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|
