Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
The only problem I have with SPF is a possible licensing
nightmare wrt Microsoft.
*_Please_* don't confuse SPF with PRA. You don't need any
license for v=spf1 (or any kind of spf2.0 excl. spf2.0/pra).
SPF is an open standard from an SPF's POV or an "experiment"
from an IESG's POV resp. I'd know where to find statements
supporting these POVs from the MS folks.
Building DKIM around SPF is not a good idea
Sure. SPF (unlike PRA) is 2821, DKIM is 2822. But that
doesn't rule out to share future header fields to report
results like Murray's Authentication-Results. And for the
SSP sharing the same RR type 99 might be also a good idea,
if Phil offers no better plan wrt wildcard issues.
For receiving systems doing both it could be nice if they
"automagically" already have some parts of what they need
for DKIM in their cache after trying SPF.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org