On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 09:21:15PM -0600, wayne wrote:
One of the editing changes I made was to try and carefully go through
the draft and make sure every reference to "host" or "host name" was
really talking about host and not domains. And, similarly, all
references to "domain" or "domain name" are not talking about hosts.
So, this is something that I know I have been confused about before,
and I *thought* I had it figured out. If the wording in the SPF draft
is not right, please let me know.
I think you got it right. The confusion seems to be that host
names supposedly need not be fully qualified domain names.
At least for SMTP this assumption is not valid.
Technically there can be host names without a dot. This is the
case if the FQDN has no dot, such as "com", "org" and similar.
AFAIK there is no host named "com" and similar.
And now re: the document. I read draft-schlitt-spf-02.html
dated december 27th. Overall it seems to be a good job.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions/remarks:
2.1 HELO identity.
After reading the changed text, I wonder if "receiving software"
shouldn't be changed into "SPF client". (I know; I proposed the
current text; sorry)
Also I wonder if this paragraph needs a (brief) statement about
the SPF publisher which MUST publish a suitable record for HELO.
This to make it absolutely clear that it is NOT optional for
the publisher but only for the client.
3.1 Publishing, and 4.5 Selecting records.
First of all: I am NOT against finding SPF records at the zone cut.
However, since the purpose of this document is to document the
protocol as defined by earlier drafts, I wonder if zone cuts
belong in this document. I may have overlooked it somewhere...