-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Dick St.Peters wrote:
Julian Mehnle writes:
As my appeal pointed out, at the time draft-lyon-senderid-core-00
was submitted for experimental status, there was no "running code"
that actually interpreted "v=spf1" as "spf2.0/mfrom,pra".
Perhaps you shouldn't have said that. Sendmail's sid-milter has used
v=spf1 records for PRA checks since its initial release in August
2004. I don't know the date for draft-lyon-senderid-core-00, but I
believe it was well after August.
draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 was submitted in October 2004. However, I
again quote from my appeal:
| So when Mark Lentczner changed the version identifier to "spf2.0" in
| draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01 in the aftermath[3,4] of IETF-60, there was
| clearly a consensus to avoid the use of "v=spf1" records for checking of
| PRA or other unexpected identities.
So if in August 2004 the Sendmail people chose to make sid-milter use
"v=spf1" records, they clearly did it against IETF consensus. I don't
think this practice should be sanctioned ex post despite them having
ignored that consensus.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
please go to