wayne wrote:
For example, the SenderID I-D talks about DNS zone cuts and
such, which were in earlier drafts of the SPF spec, but were
removed from the final draft
Their May 2005 draft still references your December 2004 state:
| If the PRA version of the test is being performed and no
| records remain, the requirement in [SPF] to find the Zone Cut
| and repeat the above steps is OPTIONAL.
That has to be removed. You sent this to the authors and the
IESG, and they all ignored it ?
even the evaluation of the "mfrom" part is not wholely
compatible.
In practice nobody implements spf2.0/mfrom, so this is only a
theoretical incompatibility, and removing the quoted paragraph
could fix it.
Many, but not all, of these semantic differences are minor.
Dick's idea "let's ignore %{h}" is certainly interesting. ;-)
IIRC that was a MARID concept, the first thing you put back
into spf-classic to reflect SPF's status-quo-antea. How is
postmaster(_at_)%{h} supposed to work without %{h} ?
AFAIK spf2.0/mfrom (and even spf2.0/pra) inherit %{h} from
v=spf1. Otherwise a wannabe-spf2.0 implementation is broken.
It really is not clear at all what exactly these differences
< are, why they exist, and what the ramifications are.
For the positional modifiers in spf2.0 I could sing it, but in
practice it's of course irrelevant: So far there is not one
implemented new modifier, let alone any positional modifier.
That's the complete list of semantic differences I'm aware of.
Bye, Frank
-------
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
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com