Douglas Otis wrote:
SPF advocates decided _not_ to adopt the revised record format
that specifies scope.
- There never was a scope in v=spf1, it was always about SMTP.
- There was apparent consensus that "spf2.0" cannot assimilate
a different + existing + older v=spf1, and no MARID draft did.
- There was no consensus that PRA makes sense, therefore one of
the MARID editors was asked to produce an "mfrom" draft.
- Five days after he posted it MARID was terminated without any
discussion with the WG (in violence of RFC 2418 section 4).
- After MARID the "mfrom" author returned to v=spf1 and updated
it with the only tangible MARID result, an unambiguous ABNF.
- Later a version with more elaborated processing limits etc.
by another author became RFC 4408.
- The PRA draft trying to assimilate v=spf1 (after MARID) was
appealed twice at the IESG and once at the IAB, resulting in
one of the longest "IESG notes" I have ever seen, stating
among other things that PRA (as is) will be never a standard,
because it is incompatible with existing Internet standards.
- The IAB decided that conflicting experiments are no problem.
- PRA was never more than a footnote in history, their attempt
to "steal" the installed v=spf1 base was a miserable failure.
http://www.openspf.org/blobs/spf-community-position.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARID
http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/senderid-appeal.htm
Of course the IETF was never asked what it thinks, as there
was never an IETF Last Call for SPF as requested. The folks
pushing SenderID wanted *no* Last Call, and they always got
what they wanted. Down to a clandestine attempt to remove
the critical NOT RECOMMENDED in 4408 by an RFC editor note.
Are we ready with this disgrace in the history of the IETF ?
SPF records will never be revised to include scope
SPF does anything that's possible in SMTP given a connecting
IP, an EHLO, and a MAIL FROM, no "scopes" needed. And FWIW
PRA does anything that is possible with an 2822 header after
stupidly ignoring the MAIL FROM, also no "scopes" needed.
A theoretically possible "Message-ID scope" is in practice
nonsense, nobody posted an spf2.0/mid (or similar) draft...
...go for it if you like the idea, maybe it is better than
the DKIM-SSP concept to bind author addresses (28822-From).
SPF does not try to dictate a common (working for everybody)
interpretation of any header fields *in* the DATA, we'll see
how far DKIM-SSP gets with its attempt.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg