ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Web pages for MASS effort

2005-01-10 08:55:45

In 
<1105365050(_dot_)5698(_dot_)57(_dot_)camel(_at_)hades(_dot_)cambridge(_dot_)redhat(_dot_)com>
 David Woodhouse <dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org> writes:

On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 05:38 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
You didn't seem to think MARID was the proper place to discuss SPF. 

I don't recall expressing that opinion. I thought that MARID _was_ the
proper place to discuss SPF.

MARID did discuss SPF to a certain degree early on, but at the same
time, we were also talking about RMX, DMP, CallerID and several other
proposals.  By the time the MARID iterim meeting rolled around, it was
decided to not try and standardize on any proposal that had any
install base and testing done on it, and instead try and create new
solutions from scratch, all without doing any testing.  (Ok, Andy
Newton and Mark Lentczner did some *very* limited testing near the
end, but the results weren't very encouraging.)

Anyway, MARID was *not* tasked with publishing a standard for SPF, and
during much of its existance, SPF-classic was off-topic.  SPF record
format, as used by SenderID, was on-topic, but nothing to do with
SPF-classic's 2821.MAILFROM or 2821.HELO checking.


As for the 'insurmountable problems' with SPF I have never once seen the CSV
faction manage to give a coherent explanation (note this is NOT an
invitation for another attempt). If the problems do exist then they must
either be fixable or affect CSV equally. 

CSV does not attempt to restrict MAIL FROM addresses to a limited set of
IP addresses; thus it does not share the same fundamentally flawed
assumptions as SPF.

Yes, true, and talk about putting locks on walls doesn't have the
fundemental problem of causing people to get locked out of their
houses either.


-wayne


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>